A Challenging Start towards
the EU 2020 Road Safety Target
6th Road Safety PIN Report
2011
30100
2010
31000
PIN Panel
PIN Steering Group
Austria (AT)
Klaus Machata, Road Safety Board (KFV)
Richard Allsop, ETSC Board of Directors (Chairman)
Belgium (BE)
Miran Scheers, Yvan Casteels, Belgian
Road Safety institute (IBSR/ BIVV)
Åsa Ersson, Ylva Berg (acting), Swedish Transport
Administration (Co-chair)
Bulgaria (BG)
Alexi Kesiakov, Ministry of Transport
Cyprus (CY)
George Morfakis, Ministry of
Communications
Czech R. (CZ)
Fric Jindrich, Petr Pokorny,
Transport Research Centre (CDV)
Denmark (DK)
Jesper Sølund, Danish Road Safety
Council
Estonia (EE)
Dago Antov, Tallin University of
Technology
Finland (FI)
Esa Räty, Finnish Motor Insurers’ Centre
(VALT)
France (FR)
Jean Chapelon, Road Safety Expert
Germany (DE)
Jacqueline Lacroix, German Road Safety
Council (DVR)
Greece (EL)
George Yannis, Technical University of
Athens
Hungary (HU)
Peter Holló, Institute for Transport
Sciences (KTI)
Ireland (IE)
Michael Rowland, Michael Brosnan,
Road Safety Authority
Israel (IL)
Shalom Hakkert, Ran Naor Foundation
for road safety research
Italy (IT)
Carla Messina, Domenico Pugliese,
Ministry of Transport
Latvia (LV)
Aldis Lama, Ministry of Transport
Lithuania (LT)
Vidmantas Pumputis, Ministry of
Transport
Luxembourg (LU)
Guy Heintz, Ministry for Sustainable
Development and Infrastructure
Malta (MT)
David Sutton, Malta Transport Authority
The Netherlands (NL) Peter Mak, Ministry of Transport
Norway (NO)
Rune Elvik, Institute of Transport
Economics (TOI)
Poland (PL)
Ilona Buttler, Motor Transport Institute
(ITS)
Portugal (PT)
João Cardoso, National Laboratory of
Civil Engineering (LNEC)
Romania (RO)
Mihai Cãlinoiu, Traffic Police
Serbia (RS)
Jovica Vasiljevic, Road Traffic Safety
Agency
Slovakia (SK)
Milos Dunajsky, Ministry of Transport
Slovenia (SI)
Vesna Marinko, Traffic Safety Agency
Spain (ES)
Pilar Zori, Ministry of Interior
Sweden (SE)
Anna Vadeby, National Road and
Transport Research Institute (VTI)
Switzerland (CH)
Stefan Siegrist, Steffen Niemann, Swiss
Council for Accident Prevention (bfu)
U.K.
Lucy Rackliff, Loughborough University
Louise Lloyd, Transport Research
Laboratory (TRL)
PIN Observers
Greece (EL)
Stelios Efstathiadis,
Road Safety Institute Panos Mylonas
Italy
Lucia Pennisi, Automobile Club d’Italia (ACI)
Heather Ward, PACTS (Co-chair)
Astrid Linder, National Road and Transport Research
Institute (VTI)
Lennart Pilskog, Volvo Trucks
Guro Ranes, Norwegian Public Roads Administration
Maria-Teresa Sanz-Villegas, European Commission
Henk Stipdonk, Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV)
Pete Thomas, Loughborough University
Nicolas van Hoecke, Toyota Motor Europe
Antonio Avenoso, ETSC
PIN Secretariat
Graziella Jost, PIN Programme Manager
graziella.jost@etsc.eu
Mircea Steriu, ETSC Communications Officer
mircea.steriu@etsc.eu
For more information about ETSC’s activities
and membership, please contact
ETSC
European Transport Safety Council
Avenue des Celtes 20
B-1040 Brussels
Tel. + 32 2 230 41 06
Fax. +32 2 230 42 15
Internet: www.etsc.eu
ETSC is grateful for the financial support provided for the
Road Safety Performance Index (PIN) by Volvo Group and
Volvo Trucks. The PIN also receives financial support from
the Swedish Transport Administration, the Norwegian Public
Roads Administration and Toyota Motor Europe.
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of
ETSC and do not necessarily reflect the views of sponsors or
the organisations to which the PIN Panel and Steering Group
members belong.
© ETSC, June 2012
A Challenging Start towards
the EU 2020 Road Safety Target
Written by
Graziella Jost
Richard Allsop
Mircea Steriu
Layout
Silvana Enculescu
20 June 2012
6th Road Safety PIN Report
Acknowledgements
ETSC is grateful for the contribution of the members of the Road Safety PIN Panel and Steering Group
to this report. This report would not have been possible without the data, background information
and expert knowledge they provided. Our special thanks go to the Chairman of the Road Safety PIN,
Prof. Richard Allsop, and the two Co-Chairs, for their invaluable support.
This report is part of ETSC’s Road Safety PIN Programme. The PIN Programme relies on the Panellists
in the participating countries to provide the data for their countries and to confirm the quality of the
data. This forms the basis for all PIN publications, which are circulated in draft to the PIN Steering
Group and Panel for comment and are finalised after taking account of comments received from
them.
The data was retrieved from CARE when available and completed or updated by the PIN Panellists.
The IRTAD database has been used for verification. ETSC is grateful to Maria-Teresa Sanz-Villegas
from the European Commission and Véronique Feypell de La Beaumelle from the Joint Transport
Research Centre of the OECD and the International Transport Forum. Reference has also been made
to the outcomes of SafetyNet including the European Road Safety Observatory (ERSO) and DaCoTA.
In respect of the road safety management questionnaire, ETSC would like to thank Pete Thomas and
Victoria Gitelman for their comments.
ETSC is also grateful for the financial support provided for the Road Safety Performance Index (PIN)
by Volvo Group and Volvo Trucks. The PIN also receives financial support from the Swedish Transport
Administration, the Norwegian Public Roads Administration and Toyota Motor Europe.
The European Transport Safety Council
The European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) is an international non-governmental organisation
which was formed in 1993 in response to the persistent and unacceptably high European road
casualty toll and public concern about individual transport tragedies. It brings together experts
of international reputation and representatives of 45 national and international organisations
concerned with transport safety from across Europe to exchange experience and knowledge and to
identify and promote research-based contributions to transport safety. ETSC provides an impartial
source of advice on transport safety matters to the European Commission, the European Parliament
and to national governments and organisations concerned with safety throughout Europe.
Executive Director: Antonio Avenoso
Board of Directors:
Professor Herman De Croo
Professor Richard Allsop
Dr. Walter Eichendorf
Professor Pieter van Vollenhoven
Professor G. Murray Mackay
4
Brian Simpson, MEP
Dr. Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, MEP
Ines Ayala Sender, MEP
Corien Wortmann-Kool, MEP
Dirk Sterckx
Contents
Executive summary
7
Introduction
9
1| Mixed results in the first year of the 2020 target – reduction in deaths
slows down
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Mixed progress in reducing road deaths in 2011
Insufficient progress at the EU level amounts to more costs for the Union
A 45% reduction in the number of road deaths since 2001
Road safety league
Road deaths per distance travelled
Reducing serious injuries on EU roads
Reduction in serious injuries compared with reduction in deaths
Hungary receives “Road Safety PIN Award”
2| Institutional Setups Fit to deliver Road Safety
2.1
2.2
2.3
A checklist for road safety management
2.1.1 Phase 1: The basics of road safety management
2.1.2 Phase 2: From strategy to action, creating the means for effective policy
2.1.3 Phase 3: Implementation and updating of the plan or programme based
on monitoring
Overview: All countries can improve their Road Safety Management
Action at global level to improve road safety management
3| Reducing road deaths among young people aged 15 to 30
3.1
3.2
3.3
The scale of the problem
3.1.1 Young people’s deaths have fallen since 2001 in all PIN countries except
Romania
3.1.2 Road safety of young people has improved faster than overall road safety
3.1.3 The scale of the problem: young people deaths account for 30% of all
road deaths across the EU
3.1.4 The safety of young people compared to the rest of the population
3.1.5 Safety is a greater challenge for young males than for young females
3.1.6 One young person’s death in four results from a road collision
3.1.7 Deaths in collisions involving a young driver or rider
Experience from fast progressing and best performing countries
3.2.1 Enforcement, in particular against the three main killers, will also prevent
road deaths among young people…
3.2.2 …if coupled with stricter sanctions: penalty points and rehabilitation
3.2.3 Safer infrastructure and safer vehicles
3.2.4 Licensing
3.2.5 Technologies to support enforcement
3.2.6 Training and education
Recommendations
10
11
13
15
16
17
17
19
20
25
25
27
30
33
37
38
42
42
42
47
49
50
52
54
56
58
58
58
58
59
61
61
62
5
6
4| Recommendations
64
Bibliography
68
Annex – Chapter 1
71
Annex – Chapter 2
77
Annex – Chapter 3
82
Executive summary
This 6th PIN Report provides an overview of European countries’ performance in three areas of road
safety. It builds on the five previous Road Safety PIN Reports published in June 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
and 2011. The report compares developments in the numbers of road deaths, during the first year of
the 2020 EU road safety target, and estimates the monetary value of their benefit to society. It also
sets these one-year developments in the context of the reduction in road deaths observed since 2001,
the starting point of the first EU road safety target. The report also provides a qualitative analysis
of the European countries’ road safety management systems, showing that while many elements
of good policies are in place, there is still scope for improvement to sustain medium- and long-term
reductions in death and injury on the roads. It also looks at the risks faced on the roads by young
people and countries’ progress in reducing road deaths among this group of road users.
These rankings have been carried out during the sixth year of the Road Safety Performance Index
(PIN) between September 2011 and June 2012. Chapters 2 and 3 cover 30 countries: the 27 Member
States of the European Union, together with Israel, Norway and Switzerland, while Chapter 1 also
includes the Republic of Serbia, who joined the PIN countries in April 2012.
Mixed results in the first year of the 2020 Road Safety Target
Across the EU progress in reducing road deaths has been mixed in 2011. The overall number of road
deaths decreased by just 3% compared with the previous year, a slowdown from the 11% drop
recorded in 2010. Latvia, Spain, Bulgaria and Romania are the four EU countries with the biggest
reductions in road deaths. They are joined by Norway, where road deaths were reduced by 20% in
2011 compared with 2010. In 13 countries the number of road deaths recorded in 2011 was above
that of 2010. Estonia, Sweden and Cyprus registered the biggest increases. Countries with good road
safety records, such as the Netherlands, Germany and the UK, also saw an increase in road deaths
after several years of sustained progress.
There have been 940 fewer road deaths in 2011 than in 2010 in the EU as a whole. The monetary
value of this reduction is estimated at 1.74 billion euro. For the EU to reach the 2020 target through
constant annual progress, another 1,140 lives would have had to be saved in 2011. The monetary
value of this additional reduction would have been 2.09 billion euro.
However, the new EU target for 2020 should be seen as achievable by all Member States, if they show
the political will to invest in road safety. Important safety measures remain to be implemented fully
or are being developed.
7
Road Safety Management
A lot of the important reductions in road deaths that were observed during the past decade can be
attributed to the improvements that the PIN countries made in the way they manage road safety and
their policy-making process.
Road safety policy needs to be supported by effective institutional management in order to achieve
long term effects on road safety levels. Recent calls by the World Bank, the UN Moscow Declaration,
the European Commission in its Road Safety Policy Orientations, and the ITF/OECD in its report
Towards Zero, among others, are urging national governments to organise clear institutional roles
and responsibilities and adopt national road safety plans and targets against which performance can
be measured and delivery made accountable so as to guide their road safety actions.
The list of questions the PIN Panellists were asked constitutes a checklist of the main elements of
effective road safety management, as inspired by best practice and innovative experiences in Member
States. The current state of key elements of road safety management, as seen by the PIN Panellists,
reveals that in every country many elements of good road safety policy are in place, but there is still
scope for greatly improved procedures in many of them.
Young People
Around 140,000 young people aged 15 to 30 were killed in road collisions in the EU27 over the
2001-2010 decade. In 2010, 9,150 young people aged 15 to 30 were killed in road collisions in 2010,
compared with 18,670 in 2001. On average, in the EU, one young person’s death in four results from
a road collision.
Member States must make the fight against road deaths among young people a priority if they want
to achieve the EU 2020 road safety target and their national targets. The share of young people’s
deaths among total deaths will increase as road safety of the rest of the population increases unless
young people’s safety is similarly improved.
The country comparison shows that the differences between countries are large. Curbing deaths
among young people therefore requires general road safety measures, coupled with specific
measures, for example targeting young drivers and powered two-wheeler riders, in particular males,
in countries where reductions in young people’s deaths on the road are lower than the EU average
reduction.
8
Introduction
In 2011, approximately 30,100 people were killed in the EU27 as a consequence of road collisions.
Around 324,000 were seriously injured and many more suffered slight injuries.
In April 2006, the European Transport Safety Council set up the Road Safety Performance Index – as a
response to the first target set by the European Union to halve road deaths between 2001 and 2010 –
as an instrument to spur European countries to greater efforts to enhance road safety. By comparing
Member States’ performance, the Index serves to identify and promote Best Practice in Europe and
bring about the kind of political leadership that is needed to create what citizens deserve - a road
transport system that offers all practicable safety.
The Index covers all relevant areas of road safety including road user behaviour, infrastructure and
vehicles, as well as road safety policymaking more generally. Since 2006, comparisons of countries
on sixteen different areas of road safety have been presented in a series of PIN Flashes, gathered
in six PIN Reports. The findings from those country rankings have been discussed in 30 PIN Talks
gathering key road safety policymakers to discuss national road safety policy, targets and strategies.
National decision-makers were confronted with both the successes and shortcomings of their road
safety policies.
The 5th PIN Annual Report presented the results of achieving or striving towards the EU target of
halving road deaths between 2001 and 2010, countries’ performance in reducing road deaths among
three groups of unprotected road users – pedestrians, cyclists and riders of powered two-wheelers –
and their progress in reducing the number of road deaths on rural roads.
The current 6th PIN Annual Report presents in Chapter 1 the results of the first year of progress
towards the EU target of halving road deaths between 2011 and 2020. Chapter 2 provides a snapshot
of the key elements of road safety management in the PIN countries, as seen by the Panellists.
Chapter 3 looks at the countries’ progress in reducing the number of road deaths of young people
during the 2001-2010 decade. The last chapter presents recommendations to the EU institutions and
the responsible authorities in the Member States.
9
1| Mixed results in the first year of the 2020
target – reduction in deaths slows down
The European Union has renewed its commitment to improving road safety by setting a target of
reducing road deaths by another 50% by 2020, compared to 2010 levels. These rankings show the
latest developments in road safety in 2011, the first annual step toward the 2020 goal.
Norway and Latvia top the ranks for reduction in road deaths between 2010 and 2011, followed
by Spain, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Greece, Denmark, Ireland and the Czech Republic with
reductions of more than 10%. Yet 2011 was a year of mixed results, with several countries, including
long-standing road safety leaders, seeing an increase in road deaths for the first time after several
years of sustained progress.
As many as 30,108 people lost their lives on EU roads in 2011, a mere 3% reduction compared to the
corresponding figure for 2010. There have been 940 fewer road deaths in 2011 than in 2010 in the
EU, valued at 1.74 billion euro according to ETSC estimates. But if the EU had made the progress
required to move towards the 2020 road safety target uniformly over the decade, reductions
valued at another 2.09 billion euro would have been achieved.
Ireland and Portugal reached the 2010 target with just one year of delay. Slovenia, Denmark and
Hungary stand on the verge of halving road deaths compared with 2001 levels, with reductions of
49% each.
10
1.1 Mixed progress in reducing road deaths in 2011
Eighteen out of the 31 countries monitored by the PIN Programme registered a drop in the number
of road deaths in 2011 compared to 2010. Norway leads this ranking with a 20% reduction in road
deaths, after a just 1% reduction in 2010. Latvia, Spain, Bulgaria and Romania achieved commendable
reductions of 18%, 17%, 15% and 15% respectively. Hungary, Greece (-14%), Denmark (-13%), Ireland
and Czech Republic (-12%) follow closely.
Sadly, the positive trend in reducing road deaths was reversed in 13 countries. Estonia saw an increase
of 28% compared to 2010, while Sweden had an increase of 20%, Cyprus 18% and Malta 13%. Other
road safety champions, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK, registered an increase in road deaths
after years of sustained decrease. Research is ongoing in those countries to understand and attend to
this worrying reversal. Any potential impact of the economic crisis to the fluctuation of the number
of road deaths should also be investigated.
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
EU average -3%
-10%
-15%
-20%
-25%
Fig. 1: Percentage change in road deaths between 2010 and 2011
* Provisional estimates used for 2011, as the final figures for 2011 are not yet available at the time of
going to print.
** UK estimate based on 3% increase in killed in 2011 Q1-3 compared with 2010 Q1-3.
Reductions in road deaths have picked up pace in Norway with a 20% drop in 2011 following a
decrease of just 1% in 2010.
“The number of deaths in Norway has not declined as rapidly in recent years as in many
other countries - a fact which has surprised us. In 2011, there was a large reduction in the
number of fatalities which brings the developments in Norway more in line with other
countries. Although the large drop in 2011 is likely to be partly a result of chance, we
also believe that we are now seeing the effects of a number of road safety measures that
have been introduced in the past decade, such as median barriers, lower speed limits on
high risk roads, the opening of new motorways, the introduction of section control and
the renewal of the car fleet. The mean speed of traffic has been reduced since 2006, and
the wearing rate for seat belts continues to increase. A new target of no more than 100
deaths in 2024 is being discussed.”
Rune Elvik, Institute of Transport Economics, Norway
11
Latvia continued its positive trend in reducing road deaths with an 18% reduction in 2011.
“The current Latvian Road Traffic Safety Action Programme sets the target of no more
than 160 road deaths occurring in 2013. To reach this goal we increased fines for traffic
offences increasing road risk, we extended the demerit penalty point system to cover
moped riders, we introduced infrastructure safety audits and developed a system to
manage high risk areas. We are confident that we will be able to achieve our goal through
better education of road users, enforcement of traffic laws and better engineering. The
forthcoming 2014-2020 road safety programme in Latvia will have to be aligned with the
EU 2020 road safety target.”
Aldis Lama, Ministry of Transport, Latvia
In Spain, road deaths dropped by 17% in 2011 compared to 2010, following a 9% decrease in 2010.
In Poland road deaths increased by 7% in 2011 after three successive years of improvement, and in
Germany they rose by 10% after continual improvement since 2001.
“There is much to suggest that the 7% increase in road deaths in 2011 is linked, at
least partly, with the hasty decision of the Polish Parliament to raise the speed limits
on practically all roads. So more than ten years of work that went into changing Polish
drivers’ attitudes and behaviour towards speed seem to have been totally wasted.
Moreover, while the 29% decrease in road deaths observed between 2001 and 2010 is not
negligible, the majority of countries have simply done better than us. I think that the poor
performance of the last decade comes as the price to be paid for policy-making which is
more accidental rather than professional, coupled with a minimal level of monitoring and
evaluation of the effectiveness of road safety policies. I hope that the new Polish National
Road Safety Programme, which is now being developed, will show that we are learning
from past mistakes.”
Ilona Buttler, Motor Transport Institute, Poland
“In Germany, the main explanation for the increase of killed and injured persons on the
roads is the weather conditions: compared to the year before, there was a mild winter,
a warm and dry springtime and a nice autumn season. When the weather conditions are
good, more drivers are on the road as well as vulnerable road users such as pedestrians,
cyclists and PTW-riders. “
Jacqueline Lacroix, German Road Safety Council
12
The indicator
Following the adoption of the EU road safety target for 2020, this ranking uses as main indicator
the percentage change in the numbers of people killed on the road between 2010 and 2011 (Fig.
1). A person killed in traffic is someone who was recorded as dying immediately or within 30
days from injuries sustained in a collision. We also used road mortality, referring to the number
of road deaths per million inhabitants as an indicator of road safety (Fig. 5). Additionally, the
number of road deaths per billion vehicle-kilometres is presented where vehicle-kilometre data
are available (Fig. 6).
The data collected to calculate the indicators are from the national statistics supplied by the
PIN Panellist in each country. CARE and IRTAD databases were used for verification. Population
figures were retrieved from the EUROSTAT database. The full dataset is available in the Annexes
– Chapter 1.
The numbers of road deaths in 2011 in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Spain and the UK are provisional as final figures were not yet available
at the time of going to print. The number of road deaths in 2011 in the UK is an estimate based
on 3% increase in killed in 2011 Q1-3 compared with 2010 Q1-3. The final count for GB will be
available on www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics. Numbers of deaths in Luxembourg and Malta are
small and are therefore subject to substantial annual fluctuation.
1.2 Insufficient progress at the EU level...
EU-27 2020 target
EU-27
EU-15
EU-10
EU-2
EU-27 2010 target
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
Enlargement EU10
Enlargement EU2
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Fig. 2: Reduction in road deaths since 1990 in the EU27 (green line), the EU15 (purple line), the EU10
(brown line) and the EU2 (Bulgaria and Romania, yellow line).
Source: CARE database 1990-2000 and PIN Panellists (2001-2011).
In 2011, the reduction in the number of road deaths has slowed down compared with the trend in
the last three years in the group of the ‘old’ EU Member States, the EU15 (- 2%), while in the EU10,
the countries which joined the EU in 2004, a slight increase has been observed (+1%). Romania and
Bulgaria maintained the good trend started in 2008 with a 15% reduction in 2011 compared to 2010.
The 3% reduction in road deaths in the EU in 2011 compared with 2010 is below the 5.7% average
annual reduction observed for the 2001-2010 decade and also below the 6.7% annual reduction
that would have been needed from 2010 to reach the EU 2020 target through constant progress. EU
13
Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas announced the slow-down in reducing road deaths and called for
intensifying efforts to reach the EU target1. Combined efforts at both national and EU level must be
stepped up in order to make the EU target for 2020 reachable.
“These figures are a wake-up call. This is the slowest decrease in road deaths in a decade.
[…] I am writing to ministers in all Member States to ask for information about national
road safety enforcement plans for 2012. I want to be reassured that even in tough economic
times this important work, which is so central to road safety, is not being scaled back.”
Siim Kallas, European Commission Vice-President, responsible for transport.
There have been 940 fewer road deaths in 2011 than in 2010 in the EU as a whole, which is 1,140 road
deaths short of where we should have been in 2011 if the reduction needed to progress towards the
2020 road safety target by constant annual steps had been achieved.
...amounts to more costs for the Union
Putting a monetary value on prevention of loss of human life and limb can be debated on ethical
grounds. However, doing so makes it possible to assess objectively the costs and the benefits of road
safety measures and to make the maximum use of generally limited resources.
The Value of Preventing one road Fatality (VPF)2 estimated for 2009 in the 5th PIN Report has been
updated to take account of the economic situation in the intervening years. As a result, we have
taken the monetary value of the human losses avoided by preventing one road fatality to be 1.84
million euro. 3
4,000
3,500
value in EUR of
saving that
could have
been achieved
Road deaths prevented
3,000
2,500
Deaths that
could have
been prevented
value of saving
in EUR
2,500
1,500
1,000
1,000
500
3,000
2,000
2,000
1,500
3,500
Deaths
prevented
500
Value of saving in millions of EUR
4,000
0
0
Road deaths
EUR
Fig. 3: Reduction in the number of road deaths in EU27 2010-2011 and valuation at 2011 prices,
together with the projected savings – both in lives and their EUR valuation – that could have been
achieved if the EU had moved toward the 2020 road safety target by steady progress.
1
2
3
14
Siim Kallas’ press release http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/326&format=HTML&aged=0&l
anguage=EN&guiLanguage=fr
In countries where the monetary value attributed to human losses avoided by Preventing one Fatality (VPF) is estimated
on the basis known as Willingness-To-Pay (WTP). The use of WTP valuations in transport safety has been advocated by
ETSC since 1997. ETSC (1997) Transport Accident Costs and the Value of Safety.
See Methodological Notes, PIN Report 2012, www.etsc.eu/PIN-publications.php
The total value of the reductions in road deaths in the EU27 for 2011 compared to 2010 is estimated
at approximately 1.74 billion euro. If the EU countries had moved towards the 2020 road safety target
through constant progress, the benefits to society would have been of the order of 3.83 billion euro
in 2011, an additional 2.09 billion euro. Given the financial difficulties that many EU countries face
due to the economic slowdown, the value to society of improving road safety should be taken into
account in the policy and budgetary planning processes, expressing in monetary terms the moral
imperative of reducing road risk. The potential for improving road safety is far from being exhausted
and EU countries stand to achieve considerable societal savings if they move towards reaching the
road safety target for 2020.4
1.3 A 45% reduction in the number of road deaths since 2001
Latvia, Spain and Lithuania are the leading countries in reducing their respective numbers of road
deaths since the adoption of the first common EU road safety target. Latvia has achieved a 68%
reduction in road deaths since 2001, Spain 63% and Lithuania 58%. Ireland, Portugal, Luxembourg
and France are the other countries where the number of road deaths in 2011 was less than half of that
in 2001 with reductions of 55%, 53%, 53% and 51% respectively.
Eight countries had reached the EU 2010 target in that year: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Sweden, France and Slovenia. Portugal and Ireland had nearly made it and indeed, they both reached
the 2010 target with just one year of delay. Unfortunately, developments in 2011 in Slovenia, Estonia
and Sweden sent the three countries back below the 50% reduction figure.
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
EU average -45%
-60%
-70%
Fig. 4: Percentage change in road deaths between 2001 and 2011
* Provisional estimates used for 2011, as the final figures for 2011 are not yet available at the time of
going to print.
** UK estimate based on 3% increase in killed in 2011 Q1-3 compared with 2010 Q1-3.
Slovenia, Denmark and Hungary stand on the verge of halving road deaths, compared with 2001
levels, with reductions of 49% each.
4
For more details, see ETSC (2011), 5th PIN Report and Methodological Notes on www.etsc.eu/PIN-publications.php
15
1.4 Road safety league
In the EU27 the overall level of road safety has improved slightly, reaching 60 deaths per million
inhabitants for the first time. The UK, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark are the four safest EU
countries for road use in 2011 (Fig. 5). They are joined by Norway in having a level of road mortality
lower than 40 deaths per million inhabitants.
250
2001
2011
200
150
112 (EU27 in 2001)
100
60 (EU27 in 2011)
50
0
Fig. 5: Road deaths per million inhabitants in 2011 (with road deaths per million inhabitants in 2001
for comparison)
* Provisional estimates used for 2011, as the final figures for 2011 are not yet available at the time of
going to print.
** UK estimate based on 3% increase in killed in 2011 Q1-3 compared with 2010 Q1-3.
Due to the increase in road deaths observed in 2011, Poland remains the only EU country with more
than 100 deaths per million inhabitants. Despite a 43% reduction in road deaths since 2001, Serbia is
the other country covered by the PIN programme with a three-digit mortality rate, following a 7%
increase in road deaths in 2011 compared to 2010.
“In reaction to the need for improving the Serbian Road Safety Performance, the
Government created the National Body for Coordination of traffic safety on the roads,
which includes representatives from the ministries of transport, home affairs, health,
labour, justice, education and trade and services. This body is tasked with monitoring and
coordinating road safety activities, as well as drafting and, upon adoption, implementing
a National Strategy on road safety. The Strategy is currently being developed in the
framework of a capacity-building project supported by the World Bank and the draft
should be completed by the end of April 2013.”
Jovica Vasiljevic, Road Traffic Safety Agency, Republic of Serbia
16
1.5 Road deaths per distance travelled
Fig. 6 shows deaths per billion vehicle-kilometres travelled for the 21 countries where data on
vehicle-km travelled are available. This indicator complements the well-established indicator of road
mortality (Fig. 5).
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fig. 6: Road deaths per billion vehicle kilometres (average for the latest three years for which both the
road deaths and the estimated number of vehicle kilometres are available).
2009-2011 (FI, IE, IT, LV, SE, CH); 2008-2010 (AT, BE, DK, EE, DE, IL, NL, NO, PT, SI, GB); 2008-2009 (PL);
2007-2009 (FR); 2007-2008 (CZ, EL).
Sweden has the lowest number of road deaths per vehicle-km driven among the countries collecting
updated data, followed by Great Britain, Ireland, Finland, Norway and Switzerland. Road risk per
kilometre travelled in Poland is more than six times higher than in Sweden. Differences between the
relative positions of countries in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 can arise out of the differences in aspects such as
the usage of motorcycling, cycling or walking as transport modes, the traffic density, the proportions
of traffic on motorways or rural roads, and the method for estimating the number of vehicle-km
travelled.
1.6 Reducing serious injuries on EU roads
More than 324,000 people were recorded by the Police as seriously injured following traffic collisions
in 2011. Road deaths represent only ‘the tip of the iceberg’ out of the total number of road collisions.
Each country should aim to reduce the number of serious injuries in traffic, according to its own
definition, an effort which must be undertaken in parallel with reducing the number of road deaths.
At the same time, the EU should work towards the adoption of a common definition of serious
injuries to foster EU comparison. Member States should improve the recording of serious injuries by
making use of both police and hospital records.
In its White Paper on the future of Transport, the European Commission committed to following a
‘zero-vision’ in road safety and to help in this it intends to “develop a comprehensive strategy of action
17
on road injuries and emergency services, including common definitions and standard classifications
of injuries and fatalities, in view of adopting an injuries reduction target”. 5
Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Latvia have achieved the highest reductions in serious injuries (Fig. 7).
Between 2001 and 2011, Spain reached an average reduction of 8.7% per year, followed by Ireland,
Portugal and Latvia with more than 8% per year. Slovenia has achieved an annual average reduction
of more than 7%.6
5.5%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%
-5%
EU+ average -3.7%
-6%
-7%
-8%
-9%
Fig. 7: Annual average percentage change in reduction of the number of serious injuries in road
traffic (2001-2011).
+
EU countries using a similar definition of serious injuries of 24 hours as in-patient: BE, CY, CZ, DK, FR,
DE, EL, IE, LU, PT, SK, ES, SE, UK.
* Annual average percentage change calculated for 2001-2010 as 2011 data is not available.
** UK estimate based on 1% decrease in seriously injured in 2011 Q1-3 compared with 2010 Q1-3.
‡ FR(2005-2010), LV(2004-2011)
The numbers of serious injuries were supplied by the PIN panellist in each country, using the prevailing
national definition. National definitions are provided in the Annex. In Estonia and Finland there are
no separate definitions of a slight injury and a serious injury.
“In addition to the decrease in the total number of serious injuries on Spanish roads,
we have also observed a marked decrease of the most serious types of injuries occurred
in traffic, spinal cord injury and brain trauma, which have dropped by 25% and 42%
respectively between 2001 and 2009. Measures that were implemented recently, such
as the introduction of a penalty point system and the reform of the penal code related
to traffic offences, have had an impact on driver behaviour, particularly as the legal
provisions are targeted at the types of offences resulting in the most severe crashes.
Speed reduction and the use of passive safety systems are two such areas.”
Pilar Zori, Ministry of Interior, Spain
5
6
18
The European Commission recently launched a public consultation on serious injuries asking stakeholders’ views on what
should be a common EU target or a common EU definition of serious injury - among others. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/
road_safety/take-part/public-consultations/road_injuries_en.htm
The reader should bear in mind that large differences in definition and reporting practices for seriously injured road users
exist between countries and that changes in reporting practices might have affected the trend in some Member States.
IRTAD Report on Linking Police and Hospital records for serious
injuries
The International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group (IRTAD) published a report on linking
police, hospital and other data sources to improve the understanding of road collisions not
resulting in deaths. The IRTAD working group in charge of the report reviewed the scientific
works and collected information on the national definitions for serious traffic injuries, the
availability of data sources, as well as the methodologies used to link the various data sources.
The IRTAD report recommends the use of a common definition of serious injuries as in-patients
with an injury level of MAIS=3 or more.7
http://internationaltransportforum.org/irtadpublic/index.html
“As of 2008 we started linking police and hospital data to estimate the real number of
traffic casualties. A 2004 survey conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics showed a
rate of under-reporting of almost 50% in the police figures. In 2009, approximately 50%
of those seriously injured in traffic appeared in police records as slightly injured or not
injured at all. We are looking to use the linked police and hospital data on serious injuries
to improve our road infrastructure”. 7
Shalom Hakkert, Ran Naor Foundation for road safety research
1.7 Reduction in serious injuries compared with reduction in deaths
In Fig. 8, the average annual percentage change in road deaths since 2001 (horizontal axis) is plotted
against the average annual percentage change in serious injuries (vertical axis). The four quadrants in
the graph are delimited by the EU averages calculated for the respective indicators.
EU average -5.9%
8%
Annual average % change in serious injuries 2001-2011
6%
4%
2%
RO
NL
0%
BG
LU
-2%
EU average -3.7%
IT
-4%
HU
UK
-6%
LV
MT
DE
IL
SK
CZ
-8%
RS
CH BE
SE
FR
LT
-10%
-12%
AT
DK
PL
NO
CY
EL
SI
ES
-10%
PT
-8%
IE
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
Annual average % change in road deaths(2001-2011)
Fig. 8: Annual average change in road deaths (2001-2011) plotted against the annual average change
in serious injuries (2001-2010).
* LV(2004-2010), FR(2005-2010)
7
The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is a specialised trauma classification of injuries, ranging from 1 (minor injuries) to
6 (fatal injuries). As one person can have more than one injury, the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score (MAIS) is the
maximum AIS of all injury diagnoses for a person.
19
As such, green markers reflect a country performing better than the EU average in both indicators,
the yellow markers show better-than-average performance in one indicator but not the other, while
red markers are used for countries below the EU average in both indicators.
Latvia, Spain, Portugal, Lithuania, Ireland, Slovenia, France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the UK,
Hungary and Germany have achieved better-than-average yearly reductions in both road deaths and
serious injuries. Of the 29 countries included in Fig. 8, eleven had a better annual average reduction
in the number of serious injuries than in road deaths: Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Malta,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia.
1.8 Hungary receives “2012 Road Safety PIN Award”
Hungary has been recognised with the “2012 Road Safety PIN Award” at the 6th ETSC Road Safety
PIN Conference on the 20 th of June for outstanding progress in reducing road deaths. Road deaths
in Hungary have been cut by 49% since 2001, helped by a 14% decrease between 2010 and 2011.
Since 2004 and its accession to the EU, Hungary quickly adapted to the rigours of membership and
to the challenge of the EU 2010 target.
ETSC talked with Dr. László Felkai, State Secretary at the Ministry of Interior, and Mr. Zoltán Schváb,
Deputy State Secretary responsible for infrastructure at the Ministry of National Development, to
get an insight into the policies which helped Hungary achieve its road safety improvements and
understand how the government is planning to sustain progress.
ETSC: Concerns for road safety have been recognised only relatively recently by the Hungarian
government. When did Hungary adopt its first multi-annual Road Safety Action Programme? What
prevented Hungary from adopting a Plan as soon as your country entered the European Union?
Mr. Schváb: The National Transport Safety Programme, the first Hungarian multi-annual programme,
was adopted in 1992. An update of this programme was necessary as it had become outdated and
several of the factors had changed since its adoption. An updated Road Safety Action Programme
was elaborated in 2007 and it covered the 2008-2010 period. Following its relative success, a
new programme was adopted for the 2011-2013 period. This new Hungarian Action Programme
is linked with the main action areas and targets in the EU Road Safety Policy Orientations 20112020. Intervention plans are adopted yearly and they set specific tasks and duties for the various
stakeholders and the individuals responsible for the programme, as well as deadlines for actions.
We are monitoring this process and the results of the monitoring will be taken into account when
drafting the next action programme.
ETSC: Hungary’s recent success in reducing road deaths is built largely on the adoption of two decisive
measures in 2008: the introduction of owner liability for traffic offences and the introduction of a
drink driving “zero tolerance”. What was the impact of those measures on Hungarian drivers?
Mr. Felkai: The introduction of owner liability for traffic offences removed the final obstacle for the
introduction of automated speed enforcement. The Hungarian system has been running since the 1st
of March 2010. Fixed cameras are installed mainly on rural roads and highways and we also have 175
mobile cameras. We are conscious that these positive developments must not make us complacent
and we have to increase the probability that drivers’ speed is being checked while they are in traffic.
Moreover, such traffic offences are processed through our automated system, which significantly
reduced the time needed to collect the required financial penalties.
20
Following the introduction of the policy of zero-tolerance to drink driving, licences of offenders can
be withdrawn on the spot, even for a small amount of alcohol. We intensively communicated this
absolute zero tolerance for drink driving through several series of information campaigns. We also
owe our success in part to adopting higher financial sanctions for a series of traffic offences including
not wearing a safety belt, not using a proper child seat or using a mobile phone while driving,
amongst others.
ETSC: Hungary has introduced a penalty point system. Is it efficient? Is the procedure to get points
quick enough and transparent?
Mr. Felkai: The system was first introduced in 2001 and was subsequently made stricter in 2008 and
in 2011. If a driver accumulates the maximum number of 18 points within a three-year period their
licence is suspended for six months and a rehabilitation course has to be attended in order to regain
the licence. Moreover, the Police’s administrative powers were enhanced in recent years and we are
constantly revising and fine-tuning our system of administrative sanctions for road safety related
offences. The latest revision of the penalty point system, adopted in 2011, reintroduced offences
related to the use of safety helmets and child safety into the system and increased the number of
points carried by several other misdemeanours. Moreover, the penalty point system was extended
to certain offences regulated by the administrative fine regime, particularly when the actual driver
is identified (this was not legally possible prior to 2011). As the changes described are still recent, we
have yet to evaluate their efficiency, but I am fully confident that they make our penalty point system
more stringent and at the same time more transparent and in the long run they will contribute to
increased levels of road safety on Hungarian roads.
ETSC: Mr. Felkai, you are responsible for Police enforcement. What is the Hungarian traffic Police
doing to ensure compliance with traffic laws, particularly speed limits? Does Hungary have a
national enforcement plan setting targets for enforcement levels, as recommended by the European
Commission in its 2004 Recommendation on enforcement of traffic law?
Mr. Felkai: The Hungarian Police is doing its utmost to enforce road safety related traffic rules. As
indicated earlier, certain offences are now regulated under administrative procedures, and the data
below reflects this change. The number of completed speed-related administrative procedures went
from 231,646 in 2008 to 352,985 in 2009, 663,329 in 2010 and 538,202 in 2011. By introducing vehicle
owner liability we have thus taken a major step forward towards achieving higher levels of road
safety, as the vehicle owner/holder can almost always be identified, offences practically cannot go
unpunished. The European Commission Recommendation calls for a constant update of internal
rules and regulations related to traffic policy and, as Mr. Schváb said, one of the aims of the 20112013 Road Safety Action Programme is to increase the frequency, efficiency and effectiveness of
road checks and to increase the visibility of the Police. This entails making more extensive use of
new technological devices, while maintaining the significant deterrent effect of classic road checks
at selected spots. Based on the positive feedback from several EU Member States we are currently
examining the possibility of introducing section control on Hungarian roads.
ETSC: The final political agreement that led to the adoption of the EU Cross-Border Enforcement
Directive was brokered under the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of Ministers. What benefits
do you think the Directive will bring to improve road safety in your country? Almost one year since
the adoption of the Directive, could you tell us how the Hungarian government is preparing for its
transposition process?
21
Mr. Felkai: The adoption of the Directive in question was one of the major successes of the Hungarian
Presidency of the Council during the first six months of 2011. Once the Directive is implemented I am
confident that the level of information exchange between Member States will increase considerably
and this improved exchange will also facilitate with the follow-up of offences committed by foreign
drivers. Moreover, I believe the Directive will enhance cooperation between the competent authorities
in the Member States and ideally behaviour in traffic would improve as well. Notwithstanding the
fact that road safety related traffic offences covered by this Directive are not subject to homogeneous
treatment in the Member States in terms of their administrative or criminal nature, the system of
information exchange to be put in place for those offences grants the Member State where the
offence was committed access to the vehicle registration data. Before the adoption of the Directive
a legal gap was identified in this area and I thus consider the adoption of the Directive to be a major
step forward in cooperation at the EU level.
ETSC: Unprotected road users have been identified as a group requiring targeted policies to reduce
their risk on the roads. In 2011 you launched an initiative to improve the safety of cyclists. Can you
explain why this is a priority group in Hungary? What does this initiative consist of?
Mr. Schváb: The popularity of cycling in Hungary has been increasing. While actions were undertaken
to increase the safety of cyclists, about 12-14% of those killed on the road are cyclists. Additionally,
the number of certain types of collisions which involve cyclists is increasing, despite significant
improvements in road safety in general. Research indicates that we must prioritise improving the
visibility, the level of traffic knowledge and the behaviour of cyclists. As sustainable mobility implies
a higher rate of cycling, the safety of cyclists should be addressed constantly. Looking to improve
the level knowledge of the citizens participating in traffic, the Hungarian Ministry of National
Development launched the “Life Journey” programme. The goal of “Life Journey” is to implement
the concept of lifelong learning in the field of road traffic through extensive cooperation with the
relevant stakeholders. As traffic education is a basic component of driver training, we are looking
to also improve the effectiveness of traffic education activities for cyclists. One of the medium term
targets of the “Life Journey” programme is to issue a so-called biking licence showing a level of
traffic education attained by cyclists. The first step is the “Super Bike” programme where we are
cooperating with several organisations in order to increase the level of safety of children cyclists.
Mr. Felkai: If I may add, in 25% of the collisions caused by cyclists they are under the influence
of alcohol. In 2011 we addressed this worrying phenomenon by several actions devoted to cyclists.
The National Police cooperated with relevant stakeholders on the matter, including the Hungarian
Bicycle Club, and launched several information campaigns during the year. In April 2011 we organised
a four-week long enforcement action. Moreover, our ‘school policemen’ have also participated in
the “Super Bike” programme that Mr. Schváb mentioned by providing assistance in checking the
technical state of youngsters’ bicycles. The pupils have to pass an exam to obtain their biking licence,
following theoretical and practical training.
ETSC: Young people are a particular group of road users which face significantly higher road risks
than the general population. What are your specific policies targeting these road users and how
effective are they proving?
Mr. Schváb: We would like to introduce targeted measures to decrease the collision risk of young
novice drivers. We are looking to learn from international experiences, particularly with regards to
two-phase driver training as well as probationary driver licences. We are also looking to increase
the awarenes of the general public and knowledge of traffic safety and to address the problem
22
of low levels of compliance. We are using the “Life Journey” programme as the framework for
reaching these objectives. In this respect, we consider as crucial the training and preparation of those
working with children in the field of public education and consequently prepared and published
materials intended to help teachers in their preparation for traffic education for children. We are
also aiming to reach active adults, who are responsible for the safety of their children and of their
ageing parents. One year since the launch of “Life Journey” the initiative seems successful and several
actions organised by private sector, such as the Mobile Kids of Mercedes Benz8 have been integrated
into our programme.
ETSC: The use of new technologies that prevent dangerous driver behaviour (such as alcohol interlock
devices and Intelligent Speed Assistance) can deliver significant road safety benefits in professional
transport and in the context of rehabilitation of offenders. How is your country preparing for the
introduction and/or implementation of such technologies?
Mr. Schváb: We are looking to analyse the experience from countries that have introduced such
technologies. As we believe that technological harmonisation can play an important role in road
safety, we are currently working on a national strategy for Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS).
We have taken the first steps towards a rollout of the eCall system by increasing the role of R&D.
Additionally, several research projects looking at possible solutions to implement the system are
currently in progress.
ETSC: Safe infrastructure is considered to be a prerequisite for achieving a good road safety record.
Could you tell us how your country is assessing the safety of the road network infrastructure and tell
us what is being done to comply with the EU Infrastructure Safety Directive?
Mr. Schváb: Hungary adopted and implemented the provisions of the Directive two years ago. This
means that several road safety audits have already been performed during the planning stage of
road projects. We also believe that road safety inspections are equally important as the audits. The
specialised training of road safety auditors has been ongoing in Hungary. We also see it as important
to join the EuroRAP programme and several risk maps are already available on the EuroRAP website.
ETSC: What are your priorities for the coming years?
Mr. Felkai and Mr. Schváb: The Hungarian road safety programme for 2011-2013 endorsed the EU
target of reducing road deaths by 50% by 2020. We have a long way to go to achieve this very
ambitious goal and reaching the target will require concerted efforts and increased stakeholder
cooperation. We need to do our utmost to ingrain the habit of respecting the traffic rules into road
users, to reduce deaths among young people, increase police enforcement and to constantly improve
the management of road safety. Based on our empirical studies, special attention must be paid to
the most vulnerable and exposed road users such as youngsters and the elderly, to motorcyclists and
to cyclists.
We have identified several priorities for future road safety programmes such as increasing the
probability that drivers are caught while behaving dangerously, better preparing youngsters to
participate in traffic and increasing the safety focus of the driver education system. As far as the
Hungarian road network is concerned we have to continue to pursue our prevention activities, to
regularly check road users’ behaviour through a mix of proven enforcement methods and state-ofthe-art technologies and to introduce low-cost infrastructure measures that improve road safety.
8
http://www.mobilekids.net/de-EN
23
To conclude, the Action Programme adopted by the Hungarian Government highlights five focus
areas where actions are needed: to address dangerous road user behaviour; to reach a higher level
of safety by better road management and engineering; to constantly evaluate, fine-tune and update
road safety related legislation; to increase enforcement and policing on roads and last but not least,
special attention must be paid to prevention and R&D.
”The Hungarian road safety programme for 2011-2013
endorsed the EU target of reducing road deaths by
50% by 2020. We have a long way to go to achieve
this very ambitious goal and reaching the target.”
Mr.Zoltán Schváb is the Deputy Minister of State for Transport in the Ministry
of National Development. Website of the Ministry of National Development
http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-national-development
Mr. László Felkai assumed his current position as State Secretary of the
Ministry of Interior in 2010, having held the same position between 1998
and 2002. Website of the Ministry of Interior
http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-interior
24
2| Institutional Setups Fit to Deliver Road Safety
Road safety policy needs to be supported by effective institutional management in order to achieve
long term effects on road safety levels. Recent calls by the World Bank, the UN Moscow Declaration,
the European Commission in its Road Safety Policy Orientations, and the ITF/OECD in its report
Towards Zero, among others, are urging national governments to organise clear institutional roles
and responsibilities and adopt national road safety plans and targets against which performance can
be measured and delivery made accountable so as to guide their road safety actions. This Chapter
presents a snapshot of the Road Safety Management frameworks in the PIN countries as seen by
PIN Panellists. The Panellists have looked at their Road Safety Management setups in terms of key
elements inspired by best practice and innovative experience in Member States.
Systematic and strategic thinking, complemented by actions on the lines recommended here are vital
for the sustained medium- and longer-term reductions in death and injury on the roads. Implementing
such actions requires time, particularly for the planning stage, and the ETSC recommendations
presented here should not be used as an excuse for putting off short-term measures that can be
implemented through the existing national setup.
2.1. A checklist for road safety management
Road Safety Management (RSM) has a number of generic characteristics that enable for its universal
application to all countries, irrespective of their development status or road safety performance. The
RSM system has been described as a system of three inter-related layers: institutional management
functions, interventions and results. This report focuses on the first layer institutional management
functions and some key interventions (e.g. infrastructure safety) and outputs (e.g. enforcement levels).
The following checklist can help decision makers and practitioners at national level to assess what
they have achieved so far and to detect potential deficiencies. It is worth noting that most of the
items in the checklist can also be applied to regional, municipal or corporate levels. Establishing
all items in the checklist will not guarantee success; nor will the absence of one or more of the
listed items imply failure of the current efforts. There are many European cases of successful safety
measures that have been implemented without an explicitly stated philosophy or plan behind them,
but establishing the items in the checklist can be expected to help to improve road safety radically.
The items considered covering three phases of formulation and implementation of policy are:
Phase 1: The basics of road safety management
for road safety
„„Targets for casualty reduction
„„Road safety action plan
„„Political leadership
„„Vision
Phase 2: From strategy to action, creating the means for effective policy
roles and responsibilities
„„Funding for road safety
„„Accident and casualty data
„„Research
„„Best practice exchange
„„Training
„„Scientific choice of measures
„„Public and private sector awareness and involvement
„„Institutional
25
Phase 3: Implementation and updating of the plan or programme
safety legislation
„„Enforcement of road safety laws
„„Infrastructure safety
„„Emergency response
„„Performance targets
„„Monitoring and evaluation
„„Exposure data and safety performance indicators
„„Road
910
Indicator
Until quite recently, much of the road safety work and research focused on interventions alone
and neglected issues of institutional organisation, ownership and accountability for results. Work
undertaken by the World Bank and EU research projects such as SUNFlower9 or DaCoTA10 and
leading examples of practical experience have made clear how important an efficient management
of national road safety policies is.
PIN Panellists from each country were asked to answer a set of 23 questions aiming to cover the
key elements of successful road safety management (RSM) and points were allocated to countries
according to the answers. The questions were inspired by best practice and innovative experiences
in Member States as presented in different publications (ETSC 2006 A methodological approach
to national road safety policies, Bliss and Breen 2009 Country Guidelines for the Conduct of Road
Safety Management Capacity Reviews and the Specification of Lead Agency Reforms, Investment
Strategies and Safe System Projects, ITF/OECD 2008 Towards Zero). Half of the questions are common
with a DaCoTA questionnaire and Panellists’ answers were shared with the DaCoTA researchers. If
a question was left unanswered by a Panellist, the question was taken out of the maximum total
number of points that country could reach on the whole set of questions. For each country and for
each of three subsets of the 23 questions, the total number of points allocated was expressed as a
percentage of the maximum it could reach, to provide three indicators of the scope of its efforts
towards successful RSM. Panellists’ responses are available on www.etsc.eu/PIN-publications.php.
No response was received from Bulgaria.
The set of 23 questions constitutes a checklist of the main elements of effective road safety
management. The list is not exhaustive and does not substitute for a country capacity review.
This Chapter does not attempt to track a chronological approach to RSM. According to the World
Bank 2009 report (Bliss and Breen), a comprehensive analysis of road safety problems should
be conducted before conceiving a vision, setting a target and developing effective road safety
programmes. The objective of this Chapter is not to offer a manual but rather to summarise the
current state of key elements of road safety managements in the PIN participating countries as
seen by the PIN Panellists.
9
10
26
SUNFlower, a comparative study of the developments of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom and the
Netherlands. http://sunflower.swov.nl/
DaCoTA (Road Safety Data, Collection, Transfer and Analysis) is an EU funded project. Its Work Package 1 Policymaking and Safety Management Processes is particularly relevant http://www.dacota-project.eu/workpackages/
package1.html
The answers to the questions express the personal assessments of the PIN panellists in each of
the countries. Some of the items in the checklist are not simply dichotomous, but are matters of
degree. Answers on matters of degree can be influenced by personal viewpoint: one Panellist
might reply yes to “Does research influence policy making?‘’, while another Panellist might reply
‘partly’ or ‘no’ because of different personal expectations and perceptions. Setting a national
target or publishing a national plan are examples of more dichotomous matters, but doing
either of these can range from being just political announcements without the means or will to
achieve them to expressing deep political commitment that will be followed through by effective
programmes of action. These limitations should be borne in mind when interpreting countries’
percentage scores.
2.1.1
Phase 1: The basics of road safety management
Question
Points
attributed
to ‘yes’
Points
attributed
to ‘partly’
Q1
Has a national road safety vision been set in your country? If so,
what is it?
3
2 or 1
Q3a
Has a national quantitative road safety target been set in your
country for reducing the number of deaths? If so, is it different
than the EU target of reducing road deaths by 50% by 2020? If
it is different, what is it?
1
-
Q3b
Has a national quantitative road safety target been set in your
country for reducing the number of people seriously injured?
1
-
Q3c
Have any other quantitative road safety targets been set in your
country?
1
0.5
Q4
Has a national road safety programme or plan been formulated
and adopted in your country? If so, is this plan still current?
3
2 or 1
Q22a
Are government authorities in your country seen to show
leadership in:
Purchase or renting of safe vehicles?
0.75
0.5
Q22b
Are government authorities in your country seen to show
leadership in:
Fitment of non-mandatory safety equipment in vehicles they
own or rent?
0.75
0.5
Q22c
Are government authorities in your country seen to show
leadership in:
Establishing travel plan including safety for employees?
0.75
0.5
Q22d
Are government authorities in your country seen to show
leadership in:
Requiring their contractors to do any of these?
0.75
0.5
Total of points (if all questions were answered) phase 1
12 = 100%
27
ES
NO
SE
SI
EL
FI
AT
IT
DK
PL
NL
IE
DE
RO
LT
CZ
IL
EE
CY
LV
PT
SK
CH
BE
HU
MT
UK
FR
LU
Fig. 9: Country performance in the basics of road safety management expressed as a percentage of
maximum 12 points.
According to this process of assessment, Norway, Sweden and Spain performed best in phase 1.
These three countries have adopted a vision and targets for reducing deaths and injuries, as well as
other quantitative targets. Sweden failed to reach the maximum number of points as the country
has not adopted a road safety plan, but it gains all the points for showing leadership (Q22a to d).
Slovenia follow closely, losing just one point for not having other quantitative targets than deaths
and serious injuries. In contrast, Luxembourg and France score poorly, with only one point for having
set a target for reducing road deaths (France) or endorsing the EU target (Luxembourg).
A vision or philosophy about the safety of the future transport system provides a momentum for
the implementation of the strategy and helps in removing obstacles as adoption of a vision yields its
expected changes in mentality and within organisations. Fourteen out of the 29 PIN countries have
officially adopted a vision for road safety: “Vision Zero”11 (Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Norway,
Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland), “Sustainable Safety”12 (The Netherlands), a “Safe System”13
(Austria), “road safety as a shared responsibility” (Italy), “Citizens have the right to a Safe and
Sustainable Mobility System in which everyone has a responsibility” (Spain), “create a road safety
culture” (Greece) or “remain a world leader in road safety” (UK).
The European Commission recommends that Member States adopt national road safety plans.
Twenty-one of the 29 PIN countries have adopted road safety plans or programmes14 , some inspired
by the 3rd Road Safety Action Programme 2003-201015. Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Malta and
Romania are lacking a plan. Sweden does not have a plan but initiated a “Management by Objectives”
policy16 . Progress in relation to 13 indicators is monitored and presented to stakeholders annually.
Great Britain has no plan but a Strategic Framework rather short on policy details. Road Safety Plans
are being drafted in Malta and Romania. In Belgium, a General Assembly for road safety adopted, in
2011, 20 priority measures to reach the 2020 target.
Sweden’s position concerning a road safety plan exemplifies how each country can adapt the
recommended checklist to find the right way forward from where they have reached in road
safety policy.
11
12
13
14
15
16
28
www.visionzeroinitiative.com
Sustainable Safety www.sustainablesafety.nl
A Safe System is defined in the ITF/OECD, Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System
Approach, http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/targets/targets.html
See as examples the Austrian Road Safety Plan 2011-2020 http://www.bmvit.gv.at/en/service/publications/
downloads/rsp2020.pdf or the Dutch Strategic Plan 2008-2020 or the Portuguese Plan 2008-2015 http://www.ansr.
pt/default.aspx?tabid=398
EC (2003), 3rd Road Safety Action Plan, Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010:
a shared responsibility’ (COM(2003)0311)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0311:FIN:EN:PDF
http://publikationswebbutik.vv.se/upload/6340/2011_118_analysis_of_road_safety_trends_2010.pdf
“In Sweden we have made a conscious decision not to have a common road safety plan
but to have a current management philosophy (management by objectives) with a
common follow-up. This involves various stakeholders and aims to guide stakeholders
in their individual planning processes where they can make choices of measures that are
suitable for their own organisations and activities. We believe that this strategy is one
step further than a traditional road safety plan or programme.”
Anna Vadeby, VTI, Sweden.
“The UK Strategic Framework would benefit from a clear allocation of responsibility
for implementation of measures, strict deadlines and enough resources to carry out the
measures”.
Jeremy Broughton, Transport Research Laboratory, the UK.
Targets for casualty reduction
Targets motivate stakeholders to act and help those responsible for the road transport system to
be accountable for achieving defined results17. Nearly all EU countries have either set a national
target for reducing road deaths or endorsed the EU target to reduce road deaths by 50% by 2020.
The UK, after being seen as a pioneer setting the first target in 1987, abandoned road safety targets
in the recently published UK Strategic Framework for Road Safety, as has Switzerland in its recently
adopted road safety strategy, the ViaSecura.
For reducing serious injuries 11 countries have adopted targets: Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
An increasing number of countries have also adopted other quantitative targets concerning deaths
among a specific road user group or for safety performance indicators (e.g. 80% compliance with
speed limits, 99.9% of traffic with sober drivers in Sweden).
Throughout such a process strong political will and commitment are necessary. No matter how
technically well-founded it may be, no action can be implemented effectively without political will
and commitment. It is therefore necessary for a number of politicians to be strong advocates for
the road safety cause, recognising that it is within their power to act, and to gather together a
small group of technical experts from various areas who can propose actions and help to implement
them18 .
17
18
ETSC (2010) Response to the EC Policy Orientations 2011-2020. Wong and Sze, in Safety Science 48(9) 1182-1188,
2010, estimated a 4% per year greater reduction in deaths over the duration of a target compared with similar
countries without targets.
ETSC (2006) A methodological Approach to national road safety Policy.
29
2.1.2.
Phase 2: From strategy to action, creating the means for effective policy
Question
Points
attributed
to ‘yes’
Points
attributed
to ‘partly’
6a.
Is there a lead agency or structure bearing responsibility for
road safety policy-making in your country? If so, please name it.
2
1
6b.
Is there a lead agency that is empowered to co-ordinate the
road safety activities of the main actors involved in advancing
road safety in your country? If so, please name it.
1
0.5
5a
Is there a budget dedicated to the implementation of your
national road safety programme or plan?
2
1
5b
Is the budget seen as being adequate to make your country’s
targets achievable?
1
-
10a
Are the attitudes of people towards road safety measures
being measured nationally?
1
0.5
10b
Are the attitudes of people towards behaviour of road users
being measured nationally?
1
0.5
10c
Are behaviours of road users being measured nationally?
1
0.5
13
Is there at least one research institute or university department
in your country helping to choose interventions scientifically and
establish transparent and trusted procedures for monitoring
and evaluation?
1
0.5
14
Are the results of research seen to influence policy-making and
implementation in your country?
2
1
17a
Are the collision and casualty data in your country accessible to
all interested people and organisations?
(Accessible means here free of charge)
2
1
17b
Do these data distinguish which collisions and casualties occur in
course of work or travel to or from work?
1
0.5
18
Are there arrangements in your country for exchange of
knowledge about good practice among road safety actors? And
sharing of knowledge with other countries?
3
2
19a
Are there facilities for initial training for road safety professionals
in all relevant disciplines?
1.5
1
19b
Is there in-service training for road safety professionals in all
relevant disciplines?
1.5
1
Total of points (if all questions were answered) phase 2
30
21= 100%
UK
AT
FI LV
NO
SI
CY IE
SE CH
SK RO
MT
PT
LT
NL
PL
BE
ES FR
EE
DE
HU
CZ
DK IL IT
EL LU
Fig. 10: Country performance in creating the means for effective policy expressed as a percentage of
maximum 21 points.
Norway, Sweden and Germany performed best in phase 2, followed by Denmark and Lithuania. In
contrast, Greece, Malta, Slovakia and Luxembourg score poorly.
Institutional roles and responsibilities
No government department working alone can reduce the number of road casualties effectively.
It is therefore important to organise clear institutional roles and responsibilities and coordination
between all stakeholders, from road user representatives to emergency services, including the
regional and local level. Each Member State may adopt a system that suits them best.
The institutional arrangements may include an Inter-ministerial Transport Safety Committee with
the Prime Minister as chairperson. The coordination role is best done by a multidisciplinary body
supported by a permanent secretariat or Road Safety Agency and led by a senior government
official or a high-calibre executive director. The Secretariat should have its own permanent funding,
with the power to make decisions, control resources and coordinate the efforts of all participating
sectors of government. It is also crucial to ensure a separation of powers when defining the different
institutional roles: evaluation should be independent from the executive authority and the executive
authority should be independent from the legislative authority19.
There is a Road Safety Agency or a dedicated structure with more or less power in all Member States,
except Belgium, Greece, Hungary and Slovakia. In Denmark, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal and
Sweden, however the authorities are only partly empowered to co-ordinate the road safety activities
of the main actors involved in advancing road safety.
Funding for road safety
Earmarking a part of the national budget to the completion of a Programme or Plan is essential in
achieving a successful national policy. In Austria, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK, however, there
is no budget dedicated to the implementation of the national road safety programme. In the Czech
Republic and Slovakia the sums invested in road safety are not seen as adequate, in Denmark, Estonia,
France, Israel, Italy, Latvia and Malta they are seen as partly adequate. Only in Cyprus, Ireland,
Lithuania, Norway and Slovenia are the sums invested in road safety seen as adequate to meet the
national targets. Four countries have reported significant cuts following the economic crisis and road
safety experts fear cuts in other countries.
At the EU level, Transport Ministers, in their Conclusions on road safety in December 2010, asked
the European Commission to “take the necessary actions, and allocate the necessary resources with
a view to developing coherent and cost-effective action plans for each of the strategies in order
19
ETSC (2006).
31
to implement the road safety policy orientations 2011-2020.” The European Parliament recently
reaffirmed its own strong support for EU action on road safety including a matching budget to realise
its objectives. In its Resolution on European Road Safety 2011-2020 MEPs “regret that the EU budget
for road safety measures has been cut significantly in recent years and calls on the Commission to
reverse this trend”20.
Data, monitoring and research
The need to constantly inform governments’ national road safety policy with evidence based
research is a vital ingredient for the national road safety policy cycle. In 22 of the 29 PIN countries
there is at least one research institute or university department helping to choose interventions
scientifically. 14 Panelists considered that the results of research are seen to influence policy-making
and implementation in their country and another 14 considered that results of research are seen
partly to influence policy-making. Only in Romania, where there is no national research institute, are
results of research not seen to influence policy-making.
In most countries collision and casualty data are accessible to all interested people and organisations.
In a few countries, disaggregated data is accessible to research institutes only or on payment of a fee.
Good practice in accident data collection recommends distinguishing which collisions and casualties
occur in course of work or travel to or from work. These data are available only in France and Finland,
and partly in Belgium, Greece, Italy, Romania, Spain, Switzerland and the UK.
Best practice exchange and training
Disseminating successful measures and transfer of best practice are key to avoiding repeating the same
mistakes or reinventing the wheel. International best practice dissemination can be achieved through
newsletters, internet pages, participation to international projects, attendance at international
events and similar means. Most Panellists reported formal arrangements in their countries for sharing
of knowledge and good practice among road safety actors.
The availability of highly qualified and motivated professionals is recognised as a critical prerequisite for effective programme design, implementation and evaluation. Initial training for road
safety professionals is seen as lacking or insufficient in a majority of countries and most road safety
practitioners start their careers with a very limited formal training in the field.
Training in traffic safety may include doctoral programmes, post-graduate training, university level
courses, in-service-training and refresher seminars in subjects such as traffic safety management,
biomechanics, vehicle safety, traffic psychology, vehicle trauma care and rehabilitation.
20
32
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2011-0264&language=EN#title1
2.1.3 Phase 3: Implementation and updating of the plan or programme based on
monitoring
Question
Points
attributed
to ‘yes’
Points
attributed
to ‘partly’
15a
Number of speed tickets per 1000 inhabitants (both Police
roadside checks and from speed cameras) (see Table 1)
3
2 or 1
15b
Roadside alcohol breath tests per 1000 inhabitants and
percentage of those tested found to be above the legal limit.
(Table 2)
3
2 or 1
20
For which types of road in your country are the requirements of
the EU Infrastructure Safety Directive being adopted?
2*
1 or 0.5**
21
Are the main roads in your country the subject of systematic
road safety assessment?
1
0.5
7a
Does regular quantitative monitoring of your country’s road
safety performance take place?
2
1
7b
Are the results of this monitoring published periodically?
1
0.5
9
Is there regular reporting on the road safety measures and
interventions implemented in your country?
3
2
8
Does a regular evaluation of the efficiency of the road safety
measures or interventions implemented in your country take
place?
3
2 or 1
Total points (if all questions were answered) phase 3
18=100%
* Adopted more widely than TEN-T network.
** Adopted in part or being considered for adoption more widely than the TEN-T network.
AT
HU
FI FR
NL LV
NO
RO
ES
PL
EE SE
CH
SK IE
DE
DK
CY
LT
IT SI
IL
PT
EL
UK
MT
LU
CZ
BE
Fig. 11: Country performance in implementing and updating their road safety policy as a percentage
of maximum 18 points.
Austria, Finland and the Netherlands score best in phase 3, reaping points for good monitoring,
reporting and evaluation and a high level of enforcement of speeding (Austria and the Netherlands)
or of drink driving (Finland). The Czech Republic, Malta and Belgium and Luxembourg perform
poorly with low levels of enforcement, poor reporting and evaluation and for not going beyond the
requirements of the EU Directive on Infrastructure safety.
33
Create an effective enforcement system for aspects of behaviour with highest death
reduction potential
Measures to tackle the three main killers in driver behaviour have been at the core of road safety policy
for decades and significant progress has been made since 2001. Experience from fast progressing
countries shows that progress in fighting speeding and drink driving and increasing seat belt use can
be fast and can save many lives21, but there still remains a huge potential in addressing these three
longstanding aspects of road safety.
Speed
Excessive and inappropriate speed is widely recognised as a predominant road safety problem. Yearly
numbers of speed tickets per thousand population are the highest in Austria and the Netherlands
where safety cameras and section controls have been used extensively. In contrast, being fined for
speeding is rather the exception in Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary, the UK, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria,
Greece, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and Israel (Table 1).
Country
AT
NL
FR
CY
EE*
MT
FI
IE
HU*
DK
RO
SI
ES*
LV
NO
PL
IL
SE
PT
IT
CH
LU
EL
BG
CZ
GB*
SK
LT
BE
DE
Yearly speed tickets per 1000 population
(both Police roadside checks and speed cameras)
2011
2010
2009
2008
587
497
495
457
445
501
552
558
n/a
161
158
156
118
107
90
137
80
58
35
65
80
103
n/a
62
61
64
52
59
35
39
40
54
66
35
23
51
50
47
45
50
44
46
51
49
59
79
72
42
46
49
44
44
45
50
49
41
44
44
48
40
35
38
34
n/a
26
29
29
22
24
24
23
22
18
16
20
16
15
16
20
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
44
42
21
23
29
31
n/a
n/a
n/a
20
n/a
n/a
19
17
n/a
n/a
18
20
n/a
n/a
0
24
17
16
14
10
n/a
n/a
Points allocated
in Q15a
2007
459
595
136
165
37
44
45
n/a
48
49
73
27
45
54
32
22
23
20
19
335
49
32
18
21
24
21
20
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 1: Number of speeding tickets (per 1000 population from both Police roadside checks and speed
cameras) and points allocated in phase 3 for question 15a.
Source: PIN Panellists based on national Police data.
EE* Speed camera checks started in 10.05.2010. HU* Number of completed speed-related administrative procedures.
ES* Data not available from Basque Country, Catalonia and urban areas. GB* England and Wales only. Scottish data
not included.
21
34
Numbers of seat belt and drug-driving offences were also collected. See Annexes.
Drink driving
Nineteen countries provided the number of roadside drink driving checks performed during one or
more recent years by the Police (Table 2). Police in Finland, Norway and Sweden are most active on the
fight against drink driving, with respectively 429, 367 and 287 drivers checked per 1,000 population
in 2010. Numbers of checks are also high in Cyprus and Slovenia. But, even in these countries, the
chance of a driver being breath tested during one year is less than 1 in 5 on average.
Norway, Sweden and Estonia registered the lowest percentages of drivers tested who were found
to be above the legal drink driving limit. 22 Percentages of such drivers are high in Great Britain and
Poland, possibly because enforcement there is more narrowly targeted at places and time when
drivers are likely to have consumed alcohol than where the level of enforcement is higher.
% above legal
limit
421
333
293
196
212
181
147
119
102
83
127
128
81
98
60
21
27
1.0%
0.3%
0.7%
6.2%
4.7%
3.3%
2.8%
2.6%
4.8%
1.7%
3.3%
1.8%
4.3%
0.8%
7.5%
5.0%
2.9%
385
336
256
182
202
189
135
128
87
67
130
112
63
95
47
40
23
36
13
1.7%
0.3%
0.8%
5.9%
5.8%
3.3%
3.1%
3.2%
5.8%
2.2%
3.1%
1.8%
5.9%
11%
9.5%
1.7%
3.4%
5.7%
12.9%
318
382
283
149
191
182
143
113
77
24
143
96
57
68
1.6%
0.2%
0.7%
6.8%
7.2%
3.3%
2.9%
4.1%
7%
5.1%
3.2%
2.2%
5.6%
1.0%
34
13
n/a
11
1.6%
6%
n/a
16.3%
15
0
11.6%
73%
0
n/a
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Points allocated
in Q15b
Roadside police
tests per 1,000
population
n/a
46.6%
% above legal
limit
n/a
0
Roadside police
tests per 1,000
population
0.9%
0.2%
0.6%
5.3%
4.7%
3.4%
2.1%
1.9%
3.7%
1.0%
3.6%
1.8%
3.8%
0.7%
4.9%
2.7%
2.5%
2007
% above legal
limit
Roadside police
tests per 1,000
population
429
367
287
217
198
173
161
126
122
122
120
114
106
105
88
39
27
2008
% above legal
limit
FI*
NO*
SE
CY
SI
FR
EL
IE
AT
IL
HU
ES*
PT*
EE
PL
LT
IT*
DK
GB*
MT
LU
BE
CZ
DE
LV
NL
RO
SK
CH
2009
Roadside police
tests per 1,000
population
Country
2010
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 2 Roadside alcohol breath tests per 1000 population and percentage of those tested found to
be above the legal limit and points attributed in phase 3 for question 15b.
Source: PIN Panellists based on national Police data.
FI* It is estimated that national traffic police makes 50% of all tests. Tests made by traffic police have been multiplied
by two.
NO* Number of positives tests is the number of drivers convicted for drink driving.
ES* Data not available from Basque Country, Catalonia and urban areas.
PT* Source: ANSR.
IT* Data from Traffic police forces and Carabinieri (data from local police forces are not included).
GB* England and Wales only. Scotland data not included.
22
Information about maximum Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) limits is available in the Annexes.
35
Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Romania only collect numbers of checks where drivers tested
above the legal BAC (so called “positive tests”) without recording total numbers of checks performed
by the Police23. This deprives them of information about the scale of the problem. The Czech Police
stopped collecting this information in 2008.
Improving infrastructure safety
The EU Directive 2008/96 on road infrastructure safety management requires Member States to apply
the following four instruments on the Trans-European Road Network (TERN):
„„Road safety impact assessments: these demonstrate the road safety implications of different
planning alternatives for a road project, whether construction of new infrastructure or
rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, by analogy with environmental impact assessment.
„„Road safety audits: independent technical checks aiming at identifying unsafe features of a road
project and making proposals for remedying them.
„„Network safety management: targeting remedial measures at parts of the network with high
concentrations of collisions (high-risk road sections) and/or a high potential to avoid collisions in
the future.
„„Safety inspections: carried out as part of regular road maintenance, these enable the detection
and hence reduction of collision risk in a preventive way through low cost measures.
These procedures already exist and are applied to varying degrees in some Member States. The aim of
this Directive is therefore to extend the above-mentioned measures to the whole of the EU, without
defining technical standards or requirements, but leaving the Member States free to keep already
existing procedures if they have them in place or to introduce procedures in their own way if not 24 .
The European Commission’s Road Safety Policy Orientations 2011-2020 promote the application of
the four relevant principles of infrastructure safety management as set out in the Infrastructure
Safety Directive not only to the Trans-European Road Network but also to other roads where many
more road users die.
Thirteen countries - Austria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy (from 2016), Latvia,
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia and the UK - will implement the Directive also on
other roads, mainly motorways and some main rural roads (“national roads”). The Czech Republic,
Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden will implement the Directive
only on the TEN-T. In Slovakia, the last two instruments of the Directive will also be implemented on
express roads. In Estonia, the implementation on national roads is only recommended. Transposition
is still pending adoption by national Parliaments in Belgium and Finland a year and a half after the
deadline for transposition (December 2010).
Monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring EU countries’ policies specifically as concerns reaching the targets and assessing the costeffectiveness of measures helps national policy makers to identify fields in which better progress is
possible. The EU is already collecting data on accident outcomes and accident circumstances within the
CARE database. However, monitoring countries’ performance only on the basis of collision outcomes
is not enough. The EU should encourage Member States to monitor normal traffic through a set of
performance indicators and make use of the results of the EU funded research project SafetyNet as
well as from the ETSC Road Safety PIN programme. Safety Performance Indicators allow actions to be
targeted in key areas systematically and implementation of measures to be monitored.
23
24
36
See Table 3 in ETSC (2012), Drink Driving: Towards Zero Tolerance
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0096:EN:NOT
All 29 countries monitor their road safety performance to different extents, but in Belgium and
Poland, the Panellists answered ‘partly’ to question 7a. The results of this quantitative monitoring,
mainly collisions outcomes, are published periodically in all countries, but Ireland in Lithuania, Malta,
Romania and Slovenia, the Panellists answered ‘partly’ to question 7b.
In half of the countries, Panellists agreed that regular reporting on the road safety measures and
interventions implemented in their country was taking place, in the other half, reporting of the
measures should be improved. In France, as a good example, the National Observatory for Road
Safety publishes an annual road safety report presenting the data, the legislative measures adopted
during the year and other actions carried, together with their impact. 25
Finland, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway and Slovakia regularly evaluate
efficiency of the measures or interventions implemented in their country. Panelists in 16 other
countries regretted that the efficiency of road safety measures or interventions is not systematically
evaluated. The evaluation process must be scientifically based and transparent through making
public its results.
Emergency Response
To mitigate crash consequences effectively, Member States should streamline the emergency response
chain and achieve a high quality of trauma management. However, it is difficult to find an indicator
of performance in these respects and we failed to produce a question that was understood by all
Panellists.
“One of the thirteen indicators monitored annually in Sweden is “Prompt and satisfactory
rescue”. This indicator has been questioned since it is difficult to measure the efficiency in
relation to the development necessary to reach the interim targets”.
Anna Vadeby, VTI, Sweden.
2.2 Overview: All countries can improve their Road Safety Management
The table below is intended to give readers an indication Phase by Phase of the areas where Panellists’
assessment has shown a country’s road safety management to be efficient (green), moderate
(yellow) or disappointing (red) in all three phases. Only Finland and Norway have a good road safety
management across the areas.
Country performance reflects the current state of Road Safety Management as seen by the PIN
Panellists. Performance might change in the future following a change in political will or commitment.
A government can indeed decide for example to purse or abandon the idea of setting targets for
road safety; to enhance, continue or not renew the country’s road safety plan; to boost or cut the
budget dedicated to road safety; or to increase or lower the level of enforcement.
A lot of the important reductions in road deaths that were observed during the past decade can be
attributed to the improvements that the PIN countries made in the way they manage road safety and
their policy-making process. The current state of key elements of road safety management reveals
that in every country many elements of good road safety policy are in place, but there is still scope
for greatly improved procedures in many of them.
25
French National Observatory for Road Safety, ‘Bilan annuel de la sécurité routière’ (in French), http://www.securiteroutiere.gouv.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=386
37
Phase 1
Scores in
Phase 2
Phase 3
AT
BE
CY
CZ
DK
EE
FI
FR
DE
EL
HU
IE
IL
IT
LV
LT
LU
MT
NL
NO
PL
PT
RO
SK
SI
ES
SE
CH
UK
>75%
Phase 1
75% to 50%
<50%
>75%
Phase 2
75% to 55%
<55%
>70%
Phase 3
70% to 40%
<40%
2.3 Action at global level to improve road safety management
Further research is needed on all aspects of road safety management. Two European initiatives are
underway which aim to build on the current knowledge. DaCoTA is investigating an assessment
framework for policymaking processes with reference to current practice in EU countries 26 . The
Swedish Vision Zero Academy seeks to generate knowledge about effective innovation and
implementation processes27.
The challenges for low-and middle-income countries will be to benefit from the lessons learnt
in the high-income countries, while finding ways forward to suit their own, often very different
circumstances.
26
27
38
http://www.dacota-project.eu/
http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/Academy/
UN Action
In 2010 Transport Ministers and heads of delegations from over 40 countries met at the first UN
Ministerial Conference on Road Safety in Moscow. This Conference represented a historical landmark
for countries to join forces in tackling the problems of road safety globally. Delegates adopted a
resolution that called upon Member States to develop action plans and strategies in road safety
including ambitious and measurable targets. Countries are encouraged to build capacity of the
lead agency for road safety and focus measures on addressing main risk factors including excessive
speed, drink driving, non use of seat belts and helmets, vehicles poorly maintained and lacking safety
features, and poorly or insufficiently maintained road infrastructure. Funding was also seen as a
top priority and Member States were urged to develop sustainable mechanisms for financing the
implementation of national road safety programmes. National collision data systems were also seen
to be in need of improvement. 28
The importance of road safety management is emphasised by the UN in its 2008 Resolution 62/244
on improving global road safety in which it proclaimed the period 2011-2020 as the Decade of Action
for Road Safety29.
The World Bank
The Global Road Safety Facility was established by the World Bank as the first global funding
mechanism to support capacity-building and provide technical support for road safety at global,
regional and country levels30.
Guidelines for road safety management have been developed by the World Bank (Bliss and Breen
2009), adopted by the OECD and are in use in low, middle and high-income countries31. The guidelines
are a revised and expanded version of an earlier World Bank Transport Note (Bliss, 2004) and provide
practical procedures designed to be applied at country level to accelerate knowledge transfer and
sustainably scale up investment to improve road safety results. Adoption of Safe System goals,
interim targets, intervention strategies and associated institutional leadership and strengthening
initiatives that are properly sequenced and adjusted to the absorptive and learning capacity of the
country concerned are recommended for all countries. The framework has been tested in low, middle
and high-income countries. Checklists are used by safety management experts to assess country
capacity across good practice dimensions of institutional management functions, interventions and
results.32,33,34
The responsibility of world donors to support investment of safe roads only
The World Bank and other multilateral development banks spend an estimated $500bn on roads each
year. The roads they build have potential to stimulate economic growth and lift standards of living
by providing access to employment, schools and markets. Yet if not designed and managed well,
those same roads can – and often have – become instruments of death. Road safety is still too often
an afterthought. A 2007 report from the Commission for Global Road Safety said that donors have
http://www.who.int/roadsafety/ministerial_conference/declaration_en.pdf
http://www.who.int/roadsafety/about/resolutions/A-RES-62-L-43.pdf,
http://www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/en/
30
http://www.worldbank.org/transport/roads/safety.htm
31
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTTOPGLOROASAF/Resources/traffic_injury_prevention.pdf
32
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/pub/pdf/11Russia.pdf
33
Breen (2008), An independent review of road safety in Sweden
http://publikationswebbutik.vv.se/upload/4314/2008_109_an_independent_review_of_road_safety_in_sweden.pdf
34
Review of Road Safety Management Capacity in Sierra Leone commissioned to SweRoad by the World Bank, draft
report http://leonenet.info/documents/Sa_Lone_ROAD_SAFETY_MANAGEMENT_CAPACITY1.pdf
28
29
39
failed to ensure that a significant part of their investment is earmarked for safety measures, such as
the separation of pedestrians from traffic.
In the past few years, the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) has assessed and “starrated” the designs of about 50,000km of roads in low- and middle-income countries. Despite evidence
that pedestrians are twice as likely to be killed on roads with no footpaths, 84% of the roads iRAP
assessed had no footpaths. 58% of roads where traffic travels at 70km/h or more are undivided –
roads on which death rates can be as much as 10 times higher than those with a safety barrier. 35
“It is not uncommon that as little as 1% of road construction budgets is allocated to
safety, far short of the 10% which the World Bank’s guidelines suggest. The World Bank
and other donors should support only road projects that do comply with minimum road
safety guidelines”.
Greg Smith, regional director Asia Pacific of the International Road Assessment
Programme.
EU Road Safety Policy Orientations 2010-2020 – falling short of expectations
The European Parliament, in its Own Initiative Report on Road Safety adopted in September 2011,
regretted that, instead of a new far-reaching European Road Safety Action Programme, only some
weaker Policy Orientations were put forward in 2010. The Parliament also argued that the envisaged
measures - although going in the right direction - should be further developed in order to meet the
Commission’s proposed target of a further 50% reduction of road deaths by 2020.
There are EU Agencies for aviation, maritime and rail transport safety, but not for road transport
safety. In an attempt to compensate for the absence of a coordinating body for road safety, the
European Parliament calls for the creation of a Road Safety Ambassador. This European figure,
endowed with high authority by the EU and recognised by Member State governments, would be
held personally responsible for both successes and shortcomings of European action. This Ambassador
would also be responsible for setting up a Road Safety Task Force chaired by the President of the
European Commission and including key Commissioners such as Transport, Health, Budget, Research,
Enterprise and Industry, Information Society, Employment, Environment and Education and Youth.
Such high level task forces already exist in other areas such as employment or media integration.”36
The Council, in response to the European Commission’s Road Safety Policy Orientations adopted
special conclusions dedicated to road safety in December 2010. They welcomed the new EU road
safety plan, its new targets and the seven objectives and invited “the Commission and the Member
States to stimulate the development and use of safety management systems, in order to promote
responsibility for road safety among all relevant stakeholders. 37”
Engaging the public and private sectors
ISO International Standard 39001 for Road Safety Management
A new ISO international standard 39001 for road safety management is being finalised. Any player
with an influence on road safety should be able to use the standard as complementary guidance in its
efforts to contribute to safe road traffic. ISO management systems are based on the Plan-Do-CheckAct methodology which is a cyclical approach involving several steps and requires strong leadership
35
36
37
40
iRAP (2012), Vaccines for roads, 2nd edition http://www.irap.org/irap-news/285-vaccines-for-roads.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0389:FIN:EN:PDF
http://ec.europa.eu/danmark/documents/alle_emner/transport/101202_raadet_en.pdf
and commitment from top management. A management system is defined as: “a set of integrated or
interacting elements of an organisation to establish policies and objectives and processes to achieve
those objectives”.
The first step Plan covers planning and includes identifying the impact of the organisation. Part of
this also includes establishing leadership commitment and setting up a work related road safety
(WRRS) policy. The WRRS policy should include measurable targets and objectives. The next step Do
covers implementing the system which relies on coordination, budget, competent human resources
and awareness-raising, including internal and external communication. Check includes monitoring
and should ensure regular analysis and evaluation of performance against the set objectives and
targets. Act is improving both safety performance and the management system on a continual basis.
Work Related Road Safety Management Programmes
A new report “Work Related Road Safety Management Programmes” has recently been published
as part of ETSC’s PRAISE (Preventing Road Accidents and Injuries for Safety of Employees) EU funded
project 38 . The report presents the main elements of Work Related Road Safety (WRRS) management
as a means of addressing work-related road risks.
There are some similarities in approach for an employer managing and reducing the road risk of
their employees and for a government adopting a national road safety plan to protect the lives of
its citizens. These include target setting, monitoring, setting up a management system and showing
leadership. The PRAISE report commences by outlining why employers should address WRRS and by
giving ideas on where to begin within individual organisations. Part of this is making the business
case for managing road risk and demonstrating where savings can be made by employers by
investing proactively in road safety. A similar approach can also be taken by governments evaluating
the costs and benefits of taking action to reduce road traffic deaths. Leadership in introducing a
WRRS programme and integrating that into a management structure is important for employers.
Leadership is also important for governments, especially having strong political will to see through
the implementation of new road safety measures. Different models of management are presented
briefly in the report, with structures aimed at managing risk. The different models could also be of
relevance to governments looking to set up systems to reduce road risk.
The report then looks at which indicators should be monitored and evaluated and gives suggestions
on how this should be undertaken. Again, setting up monitoring systems is highly relevant to
governments managing road safety. The report underlines the need to consider the driver, the journey
and the vehicle. The report also includes a summary of key measures to tackle common risk areas for
WRRS such as speed, alcohol, drugs and medicine, fatigue and distraction, vehicle management and
maintenance.
38
http://www.etsc.eu/PRAISE-publications.php
41
3|
Reducing road deaths among young people
aged 15 to 30
Around 140,000 young people aged 15 to 30 were killed in road collisions in the EU27 over the past
ten years. In 2010, 9,150 young people aged 15 to 30 were killed in road collisions, compared with
18,670 in 2001. Deaths among this age group decreased by 44% between 2001 and 2010, compared
with 36% reduction in total deaths over the same period. Young people aged 15 to 30 represent 20%
of the total EU population but 30% of all road deaths and this share has been reduced only slightly
since 2001. Young people, especially males, continue to have the highest number of road deaths per
million population of any age group (Figs. 16, 17). Males account for 81% of all young people aged
15 to 30 killed on the roads in the EU.
The number of young people killed has decreased since 2001 in all PIN countries except Romania.
Portugal and Spain achieved the best annual average reductions in the number of young people
killed between 2001 and 2010, around 12%, followed closely by Latvia (Fig. 12a). Good progress was
also made in Sweden, The Netherlands and Switzerland, who have become the safest countries in
terms of young people killed per young inhabitants.
Despite these improvements, young people continue to experience particularly high risk on the roads,
especially young males. On average, the road mortality rate is 69% higher for young people than the
corresponding risk for the rest of the population (Fig. 16). For young males, mortality is 168% higher
than for the rest of the population (Fig. 17). Approximately one in four young people who dies in the
EU does so as the result of a road collision, about twice as many as die from suicide (Figs. 19 and 20).
Collisions involving a young driver or rider account for 37% of total road traffic deaths (Figs. 21
and 22). For each young driver killed there are 1.2 passengers or other road users killed in the same
collisions. Young drivers, especially males, are not just a danger to themselves; they also pose a greater
risk to their passengers and other road users than other drivers do.
While young people must gain experience in order to use the roads safely, the process of gaining that
experience exposes them and others to disproportionate risk. Governments and road safety actors
must find the right balance between the need to tackle the overrepresentation of young people in
road collisions and encouraging young people’s access to experience and mobility.
Member States must make the fight against road deaths among young people a priority if they want
to achieve the EU 2020 road safety target and their national targets. The share of young people’s
deaths among total deaths will increase as road safety of the rest of the population increases unless
young people’s safety is similarly improved.
The country comparison shows that the differences between countries are large. Curbing deaths among
young people therefore requires general road safety measures, coupled with specific measures, for
example targeting young drivers and powered two-wheeler riders, in particular males, in countries
where reductions in young people’s deaths on the road are lower than the EU average reduction.
3.1 The Scale of the problem
3.1.1 Young people’s deaths have fallen since 2001 in all PIN countries except Romania
Portugal and Spain scored the highest average annual reductions in the number of young people aged
15 to 30 killed in road collisions since 2001, and Latvia ranks third. A group of 12 countries composed
of Estonia, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, The Netherlands, France, Belgium,
Sweden, Czech Republic and Austria follow with reductions above the EU average of 7%. Slowest
progress has been made in Poland, Finland and Greece. In Romania, the number of young people
killed on the roads has increased since 2001.
42
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
EU average -7.0%
-10%
-12%
-14%
Fig. 12a: Average annual percentage change between 2001 and 2010 in the number of young people
aged 15-30 killed on the roads.
*2010 data not available, 2009 figure used for 2010 in calculating the annual average percentage change. Note:
Limitations of data prevent the inclusion of Bulgaria, Lithuania, Malta and Slovakia in Fig.12a and 12b.
The corresponding ranking by average annual percentage change in road mortality is shown in Fig. 12b
and is broadly similar to that in Fig. 12a, indicating that differences in the changes in population in this
age group have affected the ranking only slightly. The principal exception is Cyprus, where the increase
in population in this age group has offset by about one third the reduction achieved in its road mortality.
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
EU average -6.7%
-10%
-12%
-14%
Fig. 12b: Average annual percentage change between 2001 and 2010 in the road mortality of young
people aged 15-30 (road deaths among young people per million young inhabitants).
*2010 data not available, 2009 figure used for 2010 in calculating the annual average percentage
change.
43
In Latvia, overall road deaths were cut by 61% in 2010 compared with 2001 and road deaths among
young people by 77%. These impressive reductions are the result of the implementation of a
comprehensive set of measures to reduce overall road deaths and deaths among young people.
“In 2004, we introduced a penalty point system. Novice drivers lose their driving
licence when they reach 10 points (16 for other drivers). Police checks of major
traffic offences, in particular drink driving, have increased. Our government
has also been funding three to four big road safety campaigns a year. As a
result, attitudes towards road safety are slowly starting to change amongst the
population, in particular amongst young drivers. Research showed that the predriving period is key to preparing future drivers to behave safely. Road traffic
law is taught in social studies classes: children start to learn how to act as a safe
pedestrian and car passenger at 8/9 years old, as a safe cyclist at 11/12 and how to
act as a safe moped rider at 14/15. The test for driving a car has been improved
and a test for driving a moped was introduced in 2004, to comply with the 3rd EU
Driving Licence Directive. Still more needs to be done to reduce young people’s
high risk of dying when riding a motorcycle or a moped or when driving a car”.
Aldis Lama, Ministry of Transport, Latvia.
“Since 1994 and the revision of the Portuguese driving code, novice drivers
convicted of serious and very serious offences during their two-year probation
period see their driving licence revoked (and not only suspended as is the case
for older drivers). This law at first faced fierce opposition and was challenged in
courts. Now it is recognised that this law has a dissuasive effect among all young
drivers who are afraid of losing their driving licence. The Portuguese association
of wine and spirit retailers has been running for some years an anti drink-driving
campaign, promoting sober drivers as being “100% cool”. This campaign was
coupled with widespread police enforcement campaigns in key areas and at
relevant periods. Local authorities in cooperation with local stakeholders have
been improving public transport facilities to and from night recreation spots”.
João Cardoso, National Laboratory of Civil Engineer, Portugal.
In Spain too, young people benefitted from the recent general road safety progress. Deaths among
young people were cut by 68% in 2010, compared with 2001, while overall road deaths were reduced
by 55%. Enforcement was improved and sanctions were tightened up for all. Specific measures
targeting young people have also been implemented. Novice drivers lose their driving licence when
they lose 8 points (12 for other drivers). In 2010, the minimum age for riding a moped was increased
from 14 to 15 and theory and practical skills tests introduced in line with the EU Driving Licence
Directive.
“Campaigns raising awareness among young people on the benefit of wearing an helmet
or not drink and drive were combined with increased drink driving Police checks at night
and during the weekends. The Ministry of Interior, local authorities, NGOs and companies
are running campaigns to encourage young people to designate a sober driver to bring
them home safely. Still, every weekend, nearly 40 young people die or are seriously
injured in a road collision. Our Strategy for 2020 aims at reducing this number”.
Pilar Zori, DGT, Spain.
44
Several new measures have been introduced recently in Germany targeting young drivers. Young
people can start driver training at 16 and a half and pass both practical and theory tests at 17, but until
their 18th birthday they can only drive accompanied by an experienced driver. Supervised and novice
drivers aged 18 or below are subject to a zero alcohol limit until they reach 21 and all other novice
drivers during their first two years of driving.
Heated discussions are currently dividing decision makers and road safety stakeholders in Germany
about the possibility of the lowering the current limit of 16 years to 15 years old for driving a moped.
These discussions follow the transposition into German law of the 3rd EU Driving Licence Directive.
Whilst the EU Directive stipulates that the minimum age for driving a moped should be 16 years,
Member States are allowed to lower it as far as 14 years or raise it as far as 18. The German Road
Safety Council (DVR) has advised the German government not to lower the minimum age for driving
a moped.
“In Austria, in 1997, the minimum age for driving a moped was lowered from 16 to 15
years. Three years after, accidents involving a 15 year-old moped rider had been multiplied
by more than five. We fear that a similar development could happen in Germany. We have
to learn from the Austrian experience and avoid repeating the same mistake.”
Jacqueline Lacroix, DVR.
45,000
44,726
16,000
30,000
10,000
25,000
8,000
17,675 20,000
6,000
15,000
4,587
4,000
2,964
2,000
10,000
Overall number of road deaths
35,000
12,000
1,984 5,000
965
605 0
Young people 15-17 age group*
Young people 18-24 age group*
Young people 25-30 age group*
Females in 15-30 age group*
Males in 15-30 age group*
Overall number of deaths
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
0
2010
Number of young people roaddeaths
40,000
14,000
Fig. 13 Reduction in road deaths since 1991 in the EU15 (except Germany) among people
aged 15-17 (purple line), 18-24 (orange line), 25-30 (green line), among males aged 15 to
30 (blue line) and females aged 15-30 (pink line) and reduction in total road deaths (black
dotted line).
Source: CARE database (except 2010: PIN data as provided by Panellists).
Note: Data for Germany is available in CARE only since 2000.
45
Why young people 15 to 30?
In this report we consider “young people” to be those aged 15 to 30 (inclusive). There is no official
definition for the specific period in life when a person is considered to be “young”. While the
definition 15 to 30 is somewhat arbitrary, this is the age-range covered by indicators developed
in the recently published EU Youth Strategy39. ‘Up to 14’ was used to define the category children
for PIN Flash 12, as up to 14 the ways children travel are often dictated by the choice of parents,
environment and policies in general40. Fifteen is in many EU countries the age at which one can
start driving a moped or a motorcycle and finishes compulsory school attendance. Moreover, in
some countries, 15 is the age at which one is considered to be legally responsible of their acts.
Road safety research has traditionally considered “young people” to be those aged 18 to 25. The
path from childhood to independent adulthood is lined with a number of crucial milestones,
such as leaving the parental home to study or to work. Longer studies and difficulties in securing
a steady job have seen youngsters living with their parents for longer41 and acting as “young”
people for longer. Young people are typically in a period of rapid maturation, during which they
test boundaries and assert independence. They are at a stage in life that is often intensely social,
including being active at night and at weekends, in groups, and sometimes involving alcohol and
other recreational drugs 42.
Drivers represent 38% of total road deaths among young people. Research on road safety of
young people therefore often focuses on drivers. This report however considers all kind of road
users among young people. Increasing numbers of young people are indeed cycling, walking
or riding powered two-wheelers (PTW), partly as a contribution to reducing pollution or for
economic reasons (such as unemployment or costs of owing a car or of insurance).
39.40. 4142
The indicator
The annual average percentage reduction in the number of road deaths among young people
aged 15 to 30 inclusive between 2001 and 2010 is used as main indicator in this PIN ranking (Fig.
12a). To allow for the effect of changes in the population in this age group, the corresponding
annual average percentage reductions in road mortality in this age group are shown in Fig. 12b.
The data were retrieved from CARE when available and completed or updated by the PIN
Panellists. The full dataset is available in the Annexes. Information on driving licensing as
provided by the PIN Panellist are available on www.etsc.eu/PIN-publications.php. No data was
received from Bulgaria. For Lithuania the data do not match the age groups used in this report.
The number of young people killed in traffic is available only since 2007 in Malta and Slovakia,
making the series too short for estimating the annual average percentage reduction (Fig. 12a,
12b). Population figures were retrieved from the Eurostat database.
The safety of young people on the road is expressed in terms of mortality, i.e. the number of
young people 15 to 30 killed in road collisions divided by their population size in millions (Figs.
12b, 14, 16, 17). Road deaths divided by population give a good estimate of the overall impact
39
40
41
42
46
EC Youth Strategy, http://ec.europa.eu/youth/news/doc/sec401_en.pdf
ETSC (2009), 3rd PIN report, Chapter 3, Reducing child deaths on European roads.
Eurostat, Youth in Europe, A Statistical portrait, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-920/
EN/KS-78-09-920-EN.PDF
OECD (2006), Young drivers, The road to safety. http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/
YoungDrivers.html
of shortfalls in road safety on the age group, while taking account of changes in the young
population. Unfortunately data on number of young drivers’ licences are available in only a
few countries. Road deaths among young people are compared with deaths from all causes in
the same age group (Fig. 19). Data on deaths from all causes were retrieved from the Eurostat
database.
The percentages of different types of young road user among those killed in traffic differ by
age and gender. Young males killed in road collisions are killed as car drivers (39%), motorcycle
users (22%), car passengers (18%), pedestrians (7%), moped users (7%) and cyclists (2%) (Fig.
18a). Young females killed in road collisions are mainly killed as car passengers (38%), car drivers
(34%), pedestrians (11%), motorcycle users (6%), moped users (3%) and cyclists (3%) (Fig. 18b).
Unfortunately an estimation of time spent in traffic or the amount of travel by young people
is available in only a few countries. Exposure in traffic is therefore not taken into consideration
when comparing countries. Yet data available in Sweden, The Netherlands and the UK have
shown that large differences in male and female mortality rates remain even after taking into
consideration the fact that men drive more than women.
This report does not discuss the causes of collisions involving young people. From the existing
research on the topic we know that collisions involving young people often combine aggravating
factors such as driving at night or at weekends, carrying passengers of similar age, speeding,
drink driving, driving without seat belts. Drug-driving, especially involving cannabis, is increasing
and becomes especially dangerous when the drugs are taken along with alcohol43.Young people
are also overrepresented in single-car and loss-of-control collisions 44.
.
43 44
3.1.2 Road safety of young people has improved faster than overall road safety
On average in the EU27, road safety of young people has improved faster than road safety of the rest
of the population since 2001 (Fig. 14). In Luxembourg, Switzerland and Slovenia, the annual average
reduction in road deaths among young people is more than 3 percentage points higher than the
corresponding reduction for the rest of the population. In Hungary, Greece, Poland, Ireland, Finland
and Romania the opposite is true and road safety of other age groups has improved more than one
percentage point faster than road safety of young people.
43
44
OECD (2006), Young drivers, The road to safety.DRUID, Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and
Medicines, www.druid-project.eu.
SafetyNet (2009) Novice drivers, retrieved 25.11.2011, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/
knowledge/pdf/novice_drivers.pdf
47
4%
3%
2%
EU average 1.0%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%
Fig. 14 Amount by which the average annual percentage reduction in mortality among young people
aged 15-30 exceeds the average annual percentage reduction for the rest of the population over the
period 2001-2010.
*2010 data not available, 2009 figure used for 2010 in calculating the annual average percentage
change. Note: Limitations of date have prevented the inclusion of Bulgaria, Lithuania, Malta and
Slovakia in Fig. 14 (see indicator box).
“Road safety of young people has improved faster in Portugal than road safety of the
rest of the population since 2001. This is quite logical as young drivers benefited most
from overall road safety improvements implemented over this period, in particular
infrastructure safety improvement schemes. Young drivers also seem to have been more
receptive to recent road safety awareness campaigns than older drivers”.
João Cardoso, LNEC, Portugal.
“In Hungary, young drivers are not yet subjected to probational period, nor graduated
driving licensing. We need to explore those solutions to avoid young people being left out
of our recent progress in improving overall road safety”.
Peter Holló, Institute for Transport Science, Hungary.
“Our adverse performance in Fig. 14 is really disappointing. Many collisions involving
young people take place at night on isolated rural roads which makes enforcement
difficult. The Police have to set targets for enforcement action targeting young people’s
high risks, speeding, drink driving, and non use of seat belts. In-depth analysis showed
that more than half of the drivers aged 15 to 30 who caused a fatal road accident had
been caught by the police at least once during the last five years before the accident.
Those young people ‘at risk’ should be identified and offered additional training in order
to prevent them from engaging in risky behavior in the future”.
Esa Räty, Finnish Motor Insurance Center.
48
90,000
45,000
80,000
40,000
70,000
35,000
60,000
30,000
50,000
25,000
40,000
20,000
30,000
15,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
0
2002
5,000
Benefits to society in million Eur
78,280
2001
Reduction in young people deaths since 2001
50,000
0
Aggregate reduction in road deaths among young people since 2001
Estimated cumulative value of resulting benef its to society in million Euro at 2009 prices
Fig. 15 Cumulative reduction to 2010 in the number of road deaths among young people compared
with 2001 and estimated valuation of benefit to society at 2009 prices.
There have been 45,500 fewer road deaths among young people aged 15-30 since the adoption of
the EU target in 2001 than if the 2001 numbers had continued. The total benefit to society from the
reductions in road deaths among young people in the EU over the year 2002-2010 compared with
2001 is valued at approximately 78 billion Euro45 (Fig. 15).
The potential for reduction is far from being exhausted. The EU has adopted a new target of a
further 50% reduction in road deaths. If a 50% reduction in young people deaths from their number
in 2010 were achieved in 2020 by equal annual percentage reduction, 29,500 young people’s deaths
would be avoided over the years 2011-2020 compared with 2010. The benefit to society from these
further reductions is valued at about 57 billion Euro at 2009 prices.
3.1.3 The scale of the problem: young people deaths account for 30% of all road
deaths across the EU
Young people aged 15 to 30 represent 20% of the total EU population but 30% of all road deaths
and this share has been reduced since 2001 by only about 4 percentage points. Overrepresentation
differs between countries and between the age group 15-17, 18-24 and 25-30 and is concentrated in
the 18-24 age group46.
In Ireland deaths among 18-24 year old road users are particularly problematic. The Road Safety
Authority (RSA) has therefore implemented a comprehensive integrated road safety education
programme which is custom designed for 18-24 year olds including specific programmes for 3rd level
students and also includes an educational resource for young people not in formal education called
www.wrecked.ie.
45
46
2009 prices. The monetary valuation of the reductions in young people deaths since 2001 is based on the method
developed in ETSC (2010) 5th PIN Report, Chapter 1, p. 14. Based on updated values in use in ten European countries,
we have taken the monetary value of the human losses avoided by preventing one fatality (VPF) to be 1.70 million
Euro.
See Fig. 5a, 5b and 5c in Flash 21 on http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PIN_Flash_21.PDF.
49
The RSA has also reformed the way people are learning to drive and every driving instructor must
meet strict competencies which are reviewed and assessed every two years. The RSA has just begun
the implementation of a Graduated Driving Licence programme with the introduction of mandatory
lessons for learner motorcyclists and drivers, as well as lower BAC limits for learners and novice
drivers. These training programmes are designed to protect inexperienced learner drivers while they
are learning to drive and to support them as they develop the skills, confidence and appropriate
behaviour to share the road safely with others.
“The Road Safety Authority has an ongoing research programme looking at the
psychology of risky driving behaviour of young people which continues to inform our
interventions. We might consider the introduction of a Hazard Perception Test, the
introduction of R Plates for novice drivers, faster accumulation of penalty points for
specified driving offences, and the enhancement of the role of the accompanying driver in
the learning to drive phase”.
Michael Rowland, Road Safety Authority, Ireland.
3.1.4 The safety of young people compared to the rest of the population
On average, the road mortality rate is 69% higher for young people than the corresponding risk for
the rest of the population (Fig. 16). For young males, mortality is 168% higher than for the rest of the
population (Figs 16 and 17).
However, death rates over the last three years of available data vary greatly between Member States.
Young people are safest in Sweden, the Netherlands and Switzerland - countries with good road
safety records. In Sweden, the safest country for both young people and the rest of the population,
53 young people were killed on the roads each year per million young inhabitants, compared with 31
for the rest of the population. Young people in Greece have approximately 4 times the corresponding
risk of being killed than their Swedish counterparts.
The ranking in Fig. 16 of countries by road mortality among young people (brown bars) is mostly
fairly similar to the ranking by road mortality in the rest of the population (orange bars). Greece,
Poland and Romania are also among the countries with higher overall road mortality rates. Notable
exceptions are that Slovakia is ranked 11th (out of 28) for young people but only 24th for the rest of
the population, and France is ranked only 21st for young people compared with 11th for the rest of
the population.
50
250
Road mortality f or people 15-30. EU average 103
Road mortality at all other ages. EU average 61
200
150
100
EU average 103
EU average 61
50
0
Fig. 16 Young people deaths per million young inhabitants (with road deaths per million inhabitants
at all other ages for comparison). Average values for years 2008, 2009 and 2010.
* last three years available: 2007, 2008 and 2009
The general road safety improvements recorded in Sweden since 2001 are benefiting young people
as well (Fig. 16). General road safety measures implemented in the spirit of the Vision Zero have also
improved the safety of 15-30-year-olds; among them the introduction of separated rural roads (so
called 2+1 lane-highways with a median barrier) and safety cameras, the reassessment of speed limits
to adjust them to road safety standards, improvement in the infrastructure (separating pedestrian
and cycling from motorised traffic), the increase in 30km/h zones in areas where there are many
vulnerable road users and improvement in pedestrian and occupant protection in cars.
While low car licensing rates for 18 to 22 year olds have lessened impacts of inexperience and risk
taking, there is still substantial over representation in casualty collisions among young people. The
levels of collision involvement by 15 year old moped riders are high47.
“We advised the Swedish government to raise the minimum age for riding a moped to
16 to fall in line with the EU Driving Licence Directive and the practice in the most EU
countries”.
Nils Petter Gregersen, Swedish National Society for Road Safety (NTF), Sweden.
“We are concerned by the high number of young people killed per million young
inhabitants in Belgium. This is why we recently conducted a new research on young
drivers. As in other countries, collisions involving young people often combine
aggravating factors such as driving at night or at weekends, carrying passengers, loss
of control and drink driving. Findings from the EU project DRUID revealed that Belgian
car drivers are among those who drive more under the influence of alcohol in Europe.
Drink driving is particularly dangerous for youngsters. This is why volunteers are touring
nightclubs and music festivals all year round to raise awareness among young drivers
of the risk they pose to themselves and others if they speed, drink or take drugs before
taking the wheel”.
Yvan Casteels, Belgian Road Safety Institute.
47
Breen, J. et al (2008), An independent review of road safety in Sweden.
51
3.1.5 Safety is a greater challenge for young males than for young females
The indicator for all young people hides big differences in mortality rates between young males
and young females (Fig. 17). Males account for 81% of all young people aged 15 to 30 killed on the
roads in the EU. Young male death rates exceed young female death rates by a factor of more than
4. On average over the last 3 years 164 young males were killed on the road each year per million
young male population, compared with 40 young females per million young female population.
Across Europe, young females have a lower road mortality rate than the population as a whole. Fig.
17 shows that there is relatively little variation in young female mortality between countries other
than Cyprus, Israel, Sweden, Switzerland and The Netherlands so most of the variation in both sexes
mortality comes from the variation in young male mortality.
400
350
300
Males EU average 164
Both Sexes EU average 103
Females EU average 40
250
200
EU average 164
150
100
EU average 103
50
EU average 40
0
Fig. 17 Young people’s road mortality per million young people, in total and by gender – average of
the last three years, ranked by the mortality of both sexes.
* last three years available: 2007, 2008, 2009
52
Figures 18a and 18b show the percentages of different types of road user among young males and
females respectively who were killed on the roads in the last three years.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
car driver
car passenger
motorcyclist
moped user
cyclist
pedestrian
EU males
EU all
0%
CY
EL
MT
IT
SI
PT
CH
FR
HU
ES
UK*
BE*
NL
DE
PL
LV
IL
DK
AT
RO
SK*
IE
CZ*
FI
SE
NO
EE
LU
10%
other
Fig. 18a Percentage share of different types of road user, among male road deaths for the 15-30 age
group. Average of the last three years available, with countries ranked by percentage of car users
(driver or passenger)
* last three years available: 2007, 2008, 2009
Unfortunately an estimation of time spent in traffic or the amount of travel by young people is
available only for a very few countries. Exposure in traffic is therefore not taken into consideration
here in comparing countries. Yet data available in Sweden, The Netherlands and the UK has shown
that large differences in male and female mortality rates remain even after taking into consideration
the fact that men drive more than women.
Deaths among users of Powered-two-wheelers (PTW) represent between 30% and 50% of all young
people killed in road collisions in Cyprus, Greece, Italy, France and Malta. Male motorcyclists account
for 47% of the total number of young males killed in Greece – one of the highest shares, together
with Cyprus. The more widespread use of motorcycles only explains part of this. Unfortunately only
75% of riders and 46% of passengers wear a helmet. Cities must adopt ambitious action plans to
improve PTW safety as a matter of urgency as most of the fatal collisions involving motorcyclists
happen in cities.
“Since 2008, overall road deaths have decreased in Greece, partly due to the economic
crisis. This decrease has not been witnessed among PTW users as some car users shift to
PTW as a cheaper mode of transport and as levels of enforcement could not be sustained
following a cut in police budget, and helmet wearing checks are going down”.
George Yannis, Technical University of Athens, Greece
53
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
car driver
car passenger
motorcyclist
moped user
cyclist
pedestrian
EU females
EU all
0%
PT
NL
CH
HU
CY
SI
LV
SK*
IL
BE*
DK
ES
EL
FR
AT
IT
FI
RO
PL
UK*
SE
DE
NO
CZ*
EE
MT
IE
LU
10%
other
Fig. 18b Percentage share of different types of road user, among female road deaths in the 15-30 age
group. Average of the last three years available, with countries ranked by percentage of car users
(driver or passenger). *Last three years available: 2007, 2008, 2009
Based on research findings showing that seven out of ten female passengers killed at ages between 17
and 24 were killed in cars driven by men in the same age group, the Road Safety Authority in Ireland
launched a campaign called ‘He Drives, She Dies’ aimed at young women, designed to empower
them to say no to getting into a car with a man who drives dangerously48. Research shows eight out of
ten passengers have felt unsafe in a car. Speeding was the most common factor described as causing
fear, with many passengers saying they feared the driver would accelerate if they commented on the
vehicle’s speed. More than half of those interviewed said they would accept a lift from someone who
had been drinking.
“New EU legislation coming in soon means that insurers will not be able to charge
different amounts based on gender. It is not good news if you are a female. It is likely that
their insurance costs will go up by maybe 25 or 30% while accident statistics are showing
that their driving is significantly safer”.
Simon Douglas, AA, UK
3.1.6 One young person’s death in four results from a road collision
On average, in the EU, one young person’s death in four results from a road collision. Road deaths
among young people aged 15 to 30 represent 21% of deaths from all causes in the same age group
but these percentages vary markedly between countries (Fig. 19), and with age and between genders
within this age group (Fig.20).
48
54
www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Archived-Campaigns/He-drives-she-dies
40%
35%
30%
25%
EU average 24.1%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Fig. 19 Road deaths among those aged 15 to 30 as a percentage of deaths from all causes in the same
age group in last three years available.
Road collisions are by far the leading cause of young people’s deaths in Greece.
“Road deaths account for 32% of deaths from all causes among the 15-30-year-olds, which
is significantly higher than in other EU countries. This can be explained by particularly
low road safety levels in Greece and a higher moped and motorcycle use than in other EU
countries. When adjusted for exposure, accident risk for the 18-24-year-old motorcycle
riders (202 deaths per million vehicle-km driven) is 8 times higher than the risk for young
car drivers (25 deaths per million vehicle-km travelled) and 25 times higher than the risk
for older car drivers (8 deaths per million vehicle-km travelled)”.
George Yannis, Greece.
On average in the EU, road deaths among males aged 15 represent more than 20% of deaths from all
causes among males of that age. This percentage is successively greater among males aged 16 and 17,
and is more than 30% for males aged 18 to 24. It is only 20% for males aged 25-30. The corresponding
percentages are lower for females than for males across the age groups considered, especially for the
25 to 30 age group, but show a broadly similar pattern of variation by age.
55
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
15
16
17
Males
18-24
25-30
Females
Fig. 20: Road deaths in EU27, by gender and age group as a percentage of deaths from all causes for
that particular age group and gender in the last three years available.
3.1.7 Deaths in collisions involving a young driver or rider
Collisions involving a young driver or rider account for 37% of total road traffic deaths (Fig. 21). For
each young driver or rider killed there are 1.2 other road users killed in the same collision. Young
drivers – especially males – are not just a danger to themselves, they also pose a greater risk to their
passengers and other road users than other drivers do.
While young people must gain experience in order to use the roads safely, the process of gaining that
experience exposes them, and others, to risk. Governments and road safety actors must find the right
balance between the need to tackle the overrepresentation of young people in road collisions and
encouraging young people’s access to experience and mobility.
70%
60%
EU average 2010: 37.3%
Average of last 3 years
EU average 2001: 40.6%
Beginning of decade
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fig. 21 Road deaths in collisions involving at least one young driver or rider (in latest three years
available and in 2001) as a percentage of the total number of road deaths
* Latest 3 years available 2007, 2008, 2009. † Latest 3 years available 2006, 2007, 2008
‡ First year available: HU 2003; MT, SK 2005
56
“Requirements for driver training are very extensive in Norway but research has not
shown a direct link with the low percentage of young driver and motorcycle rider
involvement in fatal collisions. There are reasons to believe that some of the training
schemes have adverse impacts on safety as they increase drivers’ overconfidence”.
Rune Elvik, TOI, Norway.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
15-30 driver
Other driver
Car Passenger
15-30 Motorcyclist
Other moto
Moped User
Cyclist
Pedestrian
Other
Fig. 22 Road deaths following collisions involving at least one car or motorcycle driven by a young
person ranked by the share of car users (drivers or passengers) killed in those collisions.
*Latest 3 years available 2007, 2008, 2009. †Latest data available 2007, 2008.
In the EU27 the young drivers and riders themselves (represented in light blue and light green in
Fig.22) account for less than half of the deaths in the collisions in which they are involved, and Fig.22
shows how the other deaths are distributed among different kinds of road user.
While young people are a high risk group in themselves, most young people are not deliberately
unsafe. The high levels of young drivers’ and riders’ risks result in large measure from factors of
inexperience, immaturity and lifestyles associated with their age and gender (OECD 2006). Because
of lack of experience, novice drivers’ and riders’ attention is easily overloaded, and their ability
to combine simultaneous actions is relatively poor. At the same time, because serious crashes are
relatively rare events, new drivers are not provided with the sort of negative feedback that might
induce them to drive more carefully. They might also be motivated to arrive at a destination as
quickly as possible, by peer pressure or a desire to ‘show off’. Novice driver collision involvement
is lower where the licensing age for solo driving is higher, indicating that age of starting to drive
affects the level of risk during the early years of driving. Research indicates that the parts of the
brain responsible for inhibiting impulses and weighing the consequences of decisions may still be
developing until well after the teenage years, limiting some skills needed for safe driving. To keep
down costs, young people may also drive older vehicles with fewer safety features.
57
3.2 Experience from fast progressing and best performing countries
Experience from fast progressing countries suggests that improving road safety of young people is
most likely to be achieved through combining measures aimed at improving road safety for all road
users and dedicated measures aimed at reducing the high risk of involvement in collisions of young
drivers and riders.
3.2.1 Enforcement, in particular against the three main killers, will also prevent
road deaths among young people…
Many of the countermeasures targeting young people will be ineffective without related enforcement,
which may focus on areas where young people – especially young men – are particularly overrepresented, such as speeding, drink- and drug-driving and non-use of seat belts, and at times and
locations where young people are particularly active. Special plates identifying novice drivers can also
help the police targeting young people49. Special attention should also be paid to unlicensed driving.
Deaths among young people in France were cut by 40% between 2002 and 2006 following changes in
enforcement practices and the introduction of a fully automated speed management system. Novice
drivers there are submitted to stricter penalty points systems leading them to check their speed to
avoid losing their licence.
“Unfortunately, preliminary results for 2011 show a stagnation of deaths among young
people compared to 2010 following the devastating effect of making it easier for drivers
to regain penalty points that were withdrawn from their driving licence.”
Jean Chapelon, road safety expert, France.
3.2.2… if coupled with stricter sanctions: penalty points and rehabilitation
Enforcement should be coupled with serious repercussions that act as disincentives for unsafe
behaviour. Novices should thus be subject to a probationary period, during which they could lose
their licence or have to undergo additional training if they break the law. This can be accompanied
by special demerit point scales for novice drivers, who either receive more points per infraction, or
are subject to a lower point threshold for losing their licences than more experienced drivers. Point
systems can be employed under Graduated Driving Licence (see below) or probationary systems,
meaning that traffic violations during an intermediate stage of licensing could delay the novice in
attaining a full licence.
3.2.3 Safer infrastructure and safer vehicles
Because of lack of experience, young drivers are easily overloaded by the driving tasks. Safer
infrastructure and safer vehicles will benefit young people as the environment will accommodate
more of their mistakes and mitigate their consequences.
According to the Sustainable Safety Approach, the environment should be:
the infrastructure should inform the road user what behaviour is expected (clear
designing, marking, signing, constant speed limit information, functional classification…)
„„Self-enforcing: the design and features of the road should encourage drivers to maintain safe
operating speeds (traffic calming devices, road markings…)
„„Self-explaining:
49
58
In some jurisdictions, special plates are employed for identifying novice drivers. These include “L (learner)
plates” and “P (probationary) plates”, among others. Special plates help older drivers take greater precautions in
circumstances involving young drivers and also make it easier for the enforcement of protective measures imposed
as part of licensing for solo driving, such as stricter speed limits, night driving or passenger restrictions.
„„Forgiving:
the road is designed as to take into account human limitations and avoid driving errors
resulting in fatal collisions (traffic separation, forgiving roadsides). Forgivingness in the Sustainable
Safety approach developed in the Netherlands also has a social meaning. The more experienced
drivers should, by displaying anticipatory behaviour, offer room to the less experienced drivers.
This prevents mistakes by the inexperienced from being ‘sanctioned’ by a collision.
3.2.4 Licensing
Minimum age
Driving a moped with no driving licence as used to be permitted in many Member States until recently
will no longer be possible after 2013. EU Directive 2006/126/EEC on Driving Licences (replacing
Directive 91/439) introduces a new category AM and a mandatory theory driving test for moped
riders. Minimum age for category AM will be 16 years but Member States may lower as far as 14 years
or raise it as far as 18. The Directive also reinforces the principle of progressive access to the most
powerful motorcycles. Direct access to A2 should be forbidden before 18 and to the most powerful
motorcycles (category A) before 24, while riders can upgrade to a more powerful motorcycle after
two year experience on a lighter machine.
Minimum age for driving a car will be 18 but Member States may lower it to 17 years. Road safety
professionals urge Member States not to lower the minimum age for moped driving nor for solo car
driving to avoid an increase in young rider and car driver deaths when the EU Directive is transposed
into national laws.
Recent research on human brain development indicates that adolescents may be inherently less
prepared for the responsibilities of solo driving than older people50. Raising, or not lowering,
the minimum age for solo driving, will save lives, by virtue of the fact that it prevents young and
inexperienced drivers from solo driving until they are older (OECD 2006).
Graduated Driving Licence (GDL) or ’multiphase’ training systems
Graduated Driving Licence (GDL) systems are primarily designed to address the inexperience
component of young drivers’ collision risk but target also risk-taking behaviour, which can result
from age-related factors (OECD 2006). GDL systems are usually divided into three stages: learner,
probationer, and fully licensed. Support and restrictions are reduced from stage to stage. With growing
experience, more driving privileges are phased in. GDL systems are currently being successfully used
and implemented in more and more EU countries (see Background Tables) and other parts of the
world (America, Australia, New Zealand). Most evaluations of the impact of GDL systems have shown
that these systems report significant reductions in collisions and road deaths (SafetyNet 2009).
Large scale evaluations stress the characteristics of a ‘good’ GDL program51:
„„A mandatory learner period of accompanied driving of at least six months or a minimum of 5000km.
„„A probatory licence phase that includes:
„„
Night-time driving restriction that begin before midnight or Passenger restrictions on carrying
persons under 21.
„„
Stricter sanctions coupled with rehabilitation courses to educate offenders
„„
A zero Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) limit for both learner and provisional drivers.
„„A second phase course during or at the end of the probatory licence phase focusing on risk
perception and self-awareness and not enhancing driving skills.
„„A high level of enforcement and adequate levels of sanctions are also key.
50
51
OECD (2006), Young people.
EU projects GADGET and DAN.
59
Accompanied driving implies that a candidate driver is allowed to practice under the supervision
of an experienced driver, often the parents, without requiring the presence of a qualified driving
instructor, in order to increase driving experience prior to solo driving. Young drivers often have
significantly less than 25-40 hours of driving experience when they are licensed for solo driving. Postlicensing driving risks would be greatly reduced if all learner drivers were to acquire much higher
levels of pre-licensing driving experience. This could be achieved by way of targets for minimum
hours or kilometres of accompanied practice, as well as minimum periods during which this practice
should take place. A lower level of accompanied practice may actually be counterproductive, as it
might raise collision risk as a result of an increase of ‘perceived’ driving skills without a proportional
increase of ‘actual’ driving skills.52
Probationary driving licence coupled with restrictions such as lower alcohol limits
Drink driving is particularly dangerous for youngsters for several reasons (SafetyNet 2009):
„„Their tolerance of alcohol is lower, as their body is not used to dealing with it.
„„Driving is more demanding for young novice drivers than for other drivers; thus, as they need to
pay more attention to their driving task, the disrupting effect of alcohol is greater than for drivers
with more experience.
„„Alcohol reduces inhibition. As young people possess less developed self-control mechanisms, they
suffer a stronger euphoric and emotional impact from alcohol.
„„Studies have shown that youngsters tend to underestimate their actual level of intoxication.
Austria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Spain
have introduced lower alcohol limits for novice drivers and riders (see Annexes: BAC limits in the
EU27). In the Czech Republic, Estonia and Hungary there is a zero tolerance for alcohol for all drivers.
Only in Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Malta, Portugal and the UK are novice drivers allowed
to have as high a BAC as other older drivers, namely up to 0.8g/l in Malta and the UK and up to 0.5
g/l in the rest of these countries.
The measures targeting young people in the EU Policy Orientations
on Road Safety
In its Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020, the European Commission identifies the need
to improve the quality of the licensing and training systems, with a focus on young novice drivers
(Objective 1). The Commission proposes to view education and training as an overall process, a
lifelong ‘educational continuum’ which should encourage interactive methods and the acquisition
of autonomy, while keeping the cost of the licence at a reasonable level. The Commission will
examine the possibility of including accompanied driving in the requirement to obtain a driving
licence and the introduction of harmonised minimum requirements for accompanying persons
and instructors. It will consider how to include broader driving skills within the curricula of the
theoretical and practical tests, such as defensive or eco-driving skills.
The International Commission for Driver Testing Authorities (CIECA) encourages the development
of high, common standards for driving licences throughout its member countries. It participated
to several EU funded projects, among them the NovEV project (2002-2004) which aimed to
implement second phase driver training pilot projects, according to the guidelines laid down in a
previous EU project, Advanced. www.cieca.be
52
60
Several evaluation studies on accompanied driving are presented in the OECD (2006) report on young people, in
particular of the Swedish and French systems, showing mixed results depending on the quality of the systems.
3.2.5 Technologies to support enforcement
Young people might well benefit most from technologies that assist with the driving task as they may
be overloaded by the driving tasks. Yet as they are more likely to drive second hand or cheaper cars,
young people benefit less from those technologies. Information concerning the safety benefit of
purchasing cars equipped with Intelligent Speed Assistance, Seat Belt Reminders, alcohol interlocks
or Electronic Stability Control – among other safety technologies – should also be included in the
theory training provided by driving schools and questions about safety technologies included in
the theory test. Employers could also support the take up of safety technologies by their young
employees.
3.2.6 Training and education
The goal of driving training should be to create drivers that are safe, and not just technically
competent. Driver training should engage novice drivers personally and emotionally, increasing their
awareness of their own limitations and of the dangers inherent to driving. This would be a new
development compared to the current situation, in which most driver training basically concentrates
on vehicle control and the application of traffic rules.
In order to provide an overview of what the licensing process should cover, the Goals for Driver
Education (GDE) Matrix was developed in the context of the EU’s GADGET (Guarding Automobile
Drivers through Guidance, Education and Technology) project53. The GDE Matrix provides a hierarchical
schematisation of the driver’s task, outlining the personal situation within which all drivers undertake
driving, including preconditions, attitudes, abilities, demands, decisions and behaviour. These have
been categorised into four levels. Driver training traditionally focuses on the two lowest levels (vehicle
control and driving in traffic condition), particularly with regard to teaching traffic rules, practising
driving in traffic and identifying hazards. However, the proponents of the GDE Matrix propose that,
in order to create safer drivers, it is essential to focus on the higher levels as well (Goals for, and
context of driving and Goals for life and skills for living), as these have the greatest influence on the
sort of driving situations that drivers will most likely find themselves in. This would also reduce the
male bias in many current instruction and examination techniques. Females take more lessons than
males before the driving test and still find it more difficult to pass both the theoretical and practical
tests54 whereas they are less involved in road collisions.
Courses concentrating on advanced vehicle control skills like skidding and manoeuvring should not
be included in driver training for novices, as this leads to overconfidence. This conclusion is supported
by, among others, the Norwegian experience with a second phase practical training course, in which
novice drivers were taught how to control a skid (Glad, 1988). After this course was introduced,
young drivers had more collisions on slippery roads than before. A possible explanation is that, as a
result of the course, young drivers were more confident about their abilities to handle a car in such
dangerous conditions, which they previously would have avoided.
Peer to peer education
The idea is taken from drug and HIV/AIDS prevention programmes and has become known as the
“peer-education” method in which “equals relate to equals”. 55 A team of young offenders (in some
cases helpers or victims) is integrated in the theory part of the driving training programme to share
53
54
55
Christ, R; Delhomme, P.; Kaba, A.; Mäkinen, T.; Sagberg, F.; Schulze, H; Siegrist, S. (1999). GADGET, Final report
http://www.kfv.at/fileadmin/webcontent/Publikationen_englisch/GADGET-FinalReport.pdf
Maycock and Forsyth (1997) in OECD 2006.
The MODULE CLOSE TO involved eleven EU countries which implemented the recommendations developed by the
CLOSE TO project.
61
with learner drivers their own experience and the dramatic consequences of a collision on their lives.
Young offenders are offered lower sanctions and an opportunity to be rehabilitated.
Campaigns and awareness raising
Numerous campaigns are run across Europe to raise awareness among young people56. For example,
the European Night Without Accident (NESA) is an awareness campaign organised each year in
nightclubs across Europe on the 3rd Saturday of October to encourage clubbers to designate a driver
(BOB) who will not drink and will drive his friends home57.
Since 2006 ETSC is touring universities around Europe giving lectures on road safety, infrastructure
and speed management. ETSC visited 77 universities in 24 countries to strengthen knowledge on
road safety among students and encourage them to apply to take part in road safety competitions.
150 students were invited and 22 more will be to a week of integrated training in Brussels (the
Camp) to discuss and develop their knowledge on speed, road infrastructure and road safety
in general. Following the Camp, students work to implement their road safety projects in their
home countries. Through these projects, participants are invited to be road safety ambassadors
and to pass their new knowledge on to their peers.
Within R2R, “Roads to Respect” students were asked to treat a high risk site. Within ShLOW
(completed in 2010) and STARS, “STudents Acting to Reduce Speed”, students run a local speed
management project with the support of ETSC and its partners across Europe. Students have to
conduct before and after speed measurements and all demonstrated marked speed reductions
thanks to their actions.
ETSC just started BIKE PAL. BIKE PAL will go on tour around Europe, reaching out to university
students who will attend lectures on cycling safety and receive copies of a cycling manual. The
students will have the opportunity to design and implement their project to improve cycling
safety in their respective communities.
www.etsc.eu/R2R.php, www.etsc.eu/stars.php, http://www.shlow.eu/
3.3 Recommendations
The large numbers of young people killed or injured in road collisions constitute a serious public
health problem. Addressing this risk will be essential to efforts to meet the 2020 EU and national
road safety targets.
3.3.1 To Member States:
„„Continue to research the causes of young, novice driver risk with a view to designing more effective
countermeasures. Areas of particular focus should include the psychological competencies
needed to drive safely; brain development in the prefrontal cortex; gender, including the role
of testosterone, and whether young women’s risk patterns are increasingly resembling those of
young men; emotions; drugs; fatigue.
„„Achieve high levels of overall road safety. Important road safety benefits for young, novice
drivers will result from measures aimed at improving overall road safety. Safer cars and safer road
infrastructure will reduce the risk of driving errors that might result in fatal collisions.
„„Achieve effective legislation and enforcement in particular against the three main killers: speed,
drink driving and non use of protective equipment (seat belts and helmets).
56
57
62
http://www.cast-eu.org/ The EU funded project CAST developed a manual to design and implement a successful
road safety media campaign
http://www.europeannightwithoutaccident.eu/
„„Improve
training and licensing systems. The fundamental goal of pre-licence training and the
licensing process should be to create drivers who are safe, and not just technically competent,
by the time they are permitted to drive unsupervised. This will involve instilling novices with an
appropriate cognitive skill level and safety-oriented motives. The primary goal of training should
not be to help novices pass their driving tests. Based on existing knowledge, driving tests are
currently unable to discriminate accurately between those drivers who will be safe and unsafe
once they start solo driving, although they remain essential as a means of ensuring that novice
drivers have essential, basic competencies.
„„Seek improvements to formal training processes: expand the traditional method of skills-based
instruction; ensure that professional driving instructors have the knowledge and pedagogical skills
necessary to guide and assist the candidate towards becoming a safe driver.
„„Ensure high levels of experience, via accompanied driving, prior to licensing for solo driving.
„„Reduce exposure to risk immediately following licensing for solo driving. Novice drivers should
be subject to probationary periods in conjunction with stricter demerit points which make novice
drivers subject to penalties (e.g. loss of licence) or rehabilitative measures (e.g. mandatory traffic
risk awareness training) if they lose a certain number of points. Under any system, young, novice
drivers should be subject to a zero tolerance for drink driving58. Limits on driving with peer
passengers and/or at night have also shown to be beneficial.
„„Provide appropriate incentives and disincentives, i. e. support other countermeasures with stricter
demerit point systems for young, novice drivers that provide a concrete disincentive to inappropriate
driving behaviour and noncompliance with driving laws and licensing regulations; working with
the insurance industry, conduct more research into the potential benefits of economic incentives
by way of automobile insurance.
„„Exploit the benefits of new technologies. Young people would benefit the most from Intelligent
Speed Assistance, alcohol interlocks, seat belt reminders, event data recorders and other intelligent
protective systems, but, because of limited resources, they often drive older cars. The take up of
intelligent technologies by young drivers should be supported.
„„Recognise the benefit of improving public transport (buses, trains), support the introduction of
reduced ticket prices for young people, offer alternatives to car driving at places and times when
young people are partying.
„„Engage parents and other role models, i.e. proactively inform parents about the degree of
risk associated with their children’s first driving experience, reinforcing the message that their
behaviour will have an important impact on their children’s future driving and safety.
„„Understand the impact of popular media on road safety attitudes, in particular on young people’s
risk, including advertising, films, television and video games, and understand the impact of
voluntary codes of practice for advertising.
3.3.2 To EU institutions
„„Consider
proposing a Directive setting a zero tolerance for drink driving for novice drivers.
Member States to introduce Graduated Driving Licence systems to address the high
risks faced by new drivers thus allowing them to gain initial driving experience under lower-risk
conditions between gaining the learner permit and fully licensed status.
„„Encourage Member States to introduce special demerit point systems which make novice drivers
subject to penalties (e.g. loss of licence) or rehabilitative measures (e.g. mandatory traffic risk
awareness training) if they lose a certain number of points.
„„Support integrating road safety into its youth and education policy giving this a high priority.
„„Encourage
58
A technical enforcement tolerance level could be set at either 0.1 or 0.2g/l BAC but the message to drivers should be
clear: no drink and drive.
63
4|
Recommendations
4.1 General recommendations
To Member States
„„Adopt
or revise road safety action programmes aiming at reaching the target of a 50% reduction
in road deaths by 2020 and against which delivery can be made accountable.
„„Adopt national reduction targets for seriously injured (using current definition of what is a serious
injury) alongside the reduction of deaths.
„„Create a far-reaching vision or philosophy about the safety of the future transport system, looking
well beyond what is immediately achievable.
„„Create
a road safety system that recognises the vulnerability of the human body.
„„Build
political support and commitment at the highest possible level. Political leadership is
essential to coordinate different administrations and to mobilise the public budgets necessary for
the implementation of the action plan.
„„Set
up a lead agency or structure bearing responsibility for road safety policy-making and
empowered to co-ordinate the road safety activities of the main actors involved in advancing road
safety.
„„Provide
adequate government funds that allow the target-oriented setting of measures and set
up financing and incentive models for the regional and local level.
„„Seek
to reach targets by all available means, including applying proven enforcement strategies
according to the EC Recommendation on Enforcement in the field of road safety (2004/345/EC).
„„Build
public and private sector awareness for the programme in general and particularly for key
countermeasures, through adequate campaigns.
„„Improve
reliability and comparability of road safety indicators using SafetyNet recommendations.
„„Regularly monitor road user behaviour according to latest standards and communicate compliance
data to relevant stakeholders.
„„Set
quantitative sub-targets based on compliance indicators.
„„Use
the evidence gathered to devise and update relevant policies. Make the choice of measures
based on sound evaluation studies and - where applicable - cost effectiveness consideration.
„„In
line with the Infrastructure Safety Directive, apply all four instruments of the Directive (road
safety impact assessment, road safety audit, network safety management and safety inspections)
to the TEN-T and extend them to other roads.
„„Improve
the recording of serious injuries by making use of both police and hospital records.
„„Disseminate
knowledge about successful measures and research results among decision makers
and practitioners.
„„Improve
initial training of road safety in all relevant disciplines and in-service training for road
safety professionals
„„Streamline the emergency response chain and increase quality of trauma management in order to
effectively mitigate crash consequences.
„„Adopt
a well-resourced strategy with a clear co-ordination role for implementing meaningful
integration of road safety in the key related policy areas of employment, environment and health.
64
To EU Institutions
„„Show
leadership and actively work towards the fulfilment of the EU ambition stated in the 2011
Transport White Paper to become a world leader in road safety.
„„Work
together with Member States in making progress towards the target of having no more
than 15,500 road deaths in 2020, as set in the EC Road Safety Policy Orientations.
„„Closely
co-operate with the Member States to set an “open co-operation framework on road
safety”.
„„Monitor progress towards the common 2020 target and improve data collection, share experience,
knowledge and exchange best practice.
„„Monitor
the progress of Member States to develop national road safety plans including their
allocation of resources to achieve the common target, measures, timetable and publicise the
details of the national road safety plans.
„„Stimulate
the development and use of safety management systems by EU Member States.
„„Draw
up common guidelines on setting up a national road safety plan and monitor their
implementation.
„„Designate
an EU Road Safety Ambassador who would set up a task force which would also work
to encourage and motivate actions of EU Member States on road safety.
„„Support
Member States in preparing national enforcement plans with yearly targets for
compliance in the areas of speeding, drink and drug driving and seat belt use in line with the EC
Recommendation on Enforcement in the field of road safety (2004/345/EC).
„„Allocate
the necessary resources with a view to developing coherent and cost-effective action
plans for each of the seven objectives in order to implement the road safety policy orientations
2011-2020.
„„Reverse
the trend of significantly cutting the EU budget for road safety measures.
„„Through its different EU funds implement the road safety measures that are known, cost effective
and science based.
„„Support
road safety research as a priority in Horizon 2020 the EU’s new programme for research
and innovation for 2014-2020.
„„Work towards the adoption of an EU common definition of serious injuries to foster comparability
and develop a comprehensive strategy concerning road injuries,first aid and emergency response
including eCall.
„„Set
quantitative targets for reducing serious injuries of at least 40% by 2020.
„„Support
Member States in implementing all road safety Directives through monitoring
implementation, fulfilling reporting obligations and coming up with proposals to revise and
update legislation if necessary.
„„Adopt
new legislations when needed to improve road safety.
„„Apply
strict infringement proceedings against Member States who have not met the deadline to
transpose the Infrastructure Safety Directive 2008/96/EC by December 2010. Support those lagging
Member States to implement the requirements of the legislation. Furthermore under obligations
of Articles 10 and 11 ensure the exchange of knowledge, continous improvement of knowledge
and best practice in infrastructure safety.
„„Apply
conditionality for compliance with road safety infrastructure legislation for use of all EU
funds used for building and maintaining roads including the Connecting Europe Facility and the
Regional Funds.
„„Legislate
for the implementation of in-car enforcement technologies such as seat belt reminders
on all seats, Intelligent Speed Assistance and alcohol interlocks.
65
„„Support
countries in setting up data collection and evaluation procedures and stimulate the use
of harmonised protocols for accident, exposure and performance indicators using SafetyNet and
DaCoTA recommendations.
„„Support
regular public opinion surveys within the framework of Eurobarometer surveys and the
Sartre (Social Attitudes to Road Traffic Risk in Europe) project to inform political decision-making
and track trends before and after the adoption of new road safety measures.
„„Further
support the EU’s twinning programme which enables best practice exchange between
Member States and between Member States, candidate and neighbourhood countries.
„„Adopt
a well resourced strategy with a clear co-ordination role for implementing meaningful
integration of road safety in the key related policy areas of employment, environment and health.
4.2 Recommendations to protect young people
To Member States
„„Continue
to research the causes of young, novice driver risk with a view to designing more
effective countermeasures. Areas of particular focus should include the psychological competencies
needed to drive safely; brain development in the prefrontal cortex; gender, including the role
of testosterone, and whether young women’s risk patterns are increasingly resembling those of
young men; emotions; drugs; fatigue.
„„Achieve
high levels of overall road safety. Important road safety benefits for young, novice
drivers will result from measures aimed at improving overall road safety. Safer cars and safer road
infrastructure will reduce the risk of driving errors that might result in fatal collisions.
„„Achieve
effective legislation and enforcement in particular against the three main killers: speed,
drink driving and non use of protective equipment (seat belts and helmets).
„„Improve
training and licensing systems. The fundamental goal of pre-licence training and the
licensing process should be to create drivers who are safe, and not just technically competent,
by the time they are permitted to drive unsupervised. This will involve instilling novices with an
appropriate cognitive skill level and safety-oriented motives. The primary goal of training should
not be to help novices pass their driving tests. Based on existing knowledge, driving tests are
currently unable to discriminate accurately between those drivers who will be safe and unsafe
once they start solo driving, although they remain essential as a means of ensuring that novice
drivers have essential, basic competencies.
„„Seek
improvements to formal training processes: expand the traditional method of skills-based
instruction; ensure that professional driving instructors have the knowledge and pedagogical skills
necessary to guide and assist the candidate towards becoming a safe driver.
„„Ensure
„„Reduce
high levels of experience, via accompanied driving, prior to licensing for solo driving.
exposure to risk immediately following licensing for solo driving. Novice drivers should
be subject to probationary periods in conjunction with stricter demerit points which make
novice drivers subject to penalties (e.g. loss of licence) or rehabilitative measures (e.g. mandatory
traffic risk awareness training) if they lose a certain number of points. Under any system, young,
novice drivers should be subject to a zero tolerance for drink driving. Limits on driving with peer
passengers and/or at night have also shown to be beneficial.
66
„„Provide appropriate incentives and disincentives, i. e. support other countermeasures with stricter
demerit point systems for young, novice drivers that provide a concrete disincentive to inappropriate
driving behaviour and noncompliance with driving laws and licensing regulations; working with
the insurance industry, conduct more research into the potential benefits of economic incentives
by way of automobile insurance.
„„Exploit
the benefits of new technologies. Young people would benefit the most from Intelligent
Speed Assistance, alcohol interlocks, seat belt reminders, event data recorders and other intelligent
protective systems but, because of limited resources, they often drive older cars. The take up of
intelligent technologies by young drivers should be supported.
„„Recognise
the benefit of improving public transport (buses, trains), support the introduction of
reduced ticket prices for young people, offer alternatives to car driving at places and times when
young people are partying.
„„Engage
parents and other role models, i.e. proactively inform parents about the degree of
risk associated with their children’s first driving experience, reinforcing the message that their
behaviour will have an important impact on their children’s future driving and safety.
„„Understand the impact of popular media on road safety attitudes, in particular on young people’s
risk, including advertising, films, television and video games, and understand the impact of
voluntary codes of practice for advertising.
To EU Institutions
„„Consider
proposing a Directive setting a zero tolerance for drink driving for novice drivers.
„„Encourage
Member States to introduce Graduated Driving Licence systems to address the high
risks faced by new drivers thus allowing them to gain initial driving experience under lower-risk
conditions between gaining the learner permit and fully licensed status.
„„Encourage
Member States to introduce special demerit point systems which make novice drivers
subject to penalties (e.g. loss of licence) or rehabilitative measures (e.g. mandatory traffic risk
awareness training) if they lose a certain number of points.
„„Support
integrating road safety into its youth and education policy giving this a high priority.
67
Bibliography
Allsop, R.; Sze N.N; Wong, S.c. (2011) An update on the association between setting quantified road
safety targets and road fatality reduction in Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(3), 1279 - 1283.
Bliss, T; Breen, J (2009), Implementing the Recommendations of the World Report on Road Traffic
Injury Prevention. World Bank.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTTOPGLOROASAF/Resources/traffic_injury_prevention.pdf
Breen, J. et al (2008), An independent review of road safety in Sweden.
Council of the EU (2010), Council conclusions on road safety.
http://ec.europa.eu/danmark/documents/alle_emner/transport/101202_raadet_en.pdf
Christ, R; Delhomme, P.; Kaba, A.; Mäkinen, T.; Sagberg, F.; Schulze, H; Siegrist, S. (1999), GADGET,
Final report.
Directive 2008/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on road
infrastructure safety management.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0096:EN:NOT
Elvik, R. (2001), Cost-benefit analysis of road safety measures: applicability and controversies. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 33, 9-17.
Elvik et al. (2009), The handbook of road safety measures, 2nd edition.
European Commission (2010), Policy Orientations on road safety 2011-2020.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0389:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission (2011), White Paper. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards
a competitive and resource efficient transport system.
European Commission (2011), Youth Strategy.
http://ec.europa.eu/youth/news/doc/sec401_en.pdf
European Parliament (2011), Report on European Road Safety 2011-2020. http://www.europarl.
europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2011-0264&language=EN#title1
ETSC (2006), A methodological Approach to National Road Safety Policies
ETSC (2009), 3rd PIN report, 2010 on the Horizon.
ETSC (2010), Response to the EC Policy Orientations 2011-2020.
ETSC (2010), 4th PIN Report, Road Safety Target in Sight - Making up for lost time.
ETSC (2011), 5th PIN Report, 2010 Road Safety Outcome: 100,000 fewer deaths since 2001.
ETSC (2012), Drink Driving: Towards Zero Tolerance.
68
ETSC (2012), Work Related Road Safety Management Programmes, PRAISE Thematic Report 9.
Eurostat (2009), Youth in Europe, A Statistical portrait.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-920/EN/KS-78-09-920-EN.PDF
French National Observatory for Road Safety (2010), ‘Bilan annuel de la sécurité routière’.
http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=386
iRAP (2012), Vaccines for roads, 2nd edition. http://www.irap.org/irap-news/285-vaccines-for-roads.
ITF/OECD (2008), Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach.
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/targets/targets.html.
ITF/OECD (2010), Road Safety Performance National Peer review: Russian Federation.
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/pub/pdf/11Russia.pdf.
ITF/OECD (2006), Young drivers, The road to safety.
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/YoungDrivers.html.
ITF/OECD (2011), Reporting on Serious Road Traffic Casualties
http://internationaltransportforum.org/irtadpublic/index.html
SafetyNet (2009), Novice drivers.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pdf/novice_drivers.pdf.
SUPREME (2007), Best practices in road safety. Handbook for measures at the country level.
Swedish Transport Administration (2010), Management by Objectives for Road Safety Work, Towards
the 2020 Interim targets.
http://publikationswebbutik.vv.se/upload/6340/2011_118_analysis_of_road_safety_trends_2010.pdf
UN (2008), Resolution 62/244 on improving global road safety.
http://www.who.int/roadsafety/about/resolutions/A-RES-62-L-43.pdf
S.C Wong, W.T. Hung and H.K. Lo “Targets Sustainable?” Safety Science, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 1182-1188,.
2010.
Wong, S.C.; Sze, N.N, Is the Effect of Quantified Road Safety Targets Sustainable? in Safety Science,
vol. 48 (9), pp. 1182-1188, 2010.
69
Websites
CAST (Campaigns and Awareness-raising Strategies in Traffic Safety).
http://www.cast-eu.org/.
DaCoTA (Road Safety Data, Collection, Transfer and Analysis).
http://www.dacota-project.eu/workpackages/package1.html
DRUID, Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines.
http://www.druid-project.eu.
ETSC PRAISE (Preventing Road Accidents and Injuries for Safety of Employees).
http://www.etsc.eu/PRAISE-publications.php.
European Night Without Accident.
http://www.europeannightwithoutaccident.eu/.
Moscow Declaration, First Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety.
http://www.who.int/roadsafety/ministerial_conference/declaration_en.pdf.
SUNFlower, a comparative study of the developments of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom
and the Netherlands.
http://sunflower.swov.nl/.
Sustainable Safety.
http://www.sustainablesafety.nl.
UN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020.
http://www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/en/.
Vision Zero Initiative.
http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com.
World Bank, Guidelines for road safety management.
http://www.worldbank.org/transport/roads/safety.htm.
70
Annex - Chapter 1
Country
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011 2010-2011
Norway
275
310
280
258
224
242
233
255
212
210
168*
-20%
Latvia
558
559
532
516
442
407
419
316
254
218
179
-18%
Spain
5,517
5,347
5,399
4,741
4,442
4,104
3,823
3,100
2,714
2,478
2,056*
-17%
Bulgaria
1,011
959
960
943
957
1,043
1,006
1,061
901
776
658
-15%
Romania
2,451
2,411
2,229
2,444
2,629
2,587
2,800
3,065
2,797
2,377
2,018
-15%
Hungary
1,239
1,429
1,326
1,296
1,278
1,303
1,232
996
822
740
638
-14%
Greece
1,880
1,634
1,605
1,670
1,658
1,657
1,612
1,553
1,456
1,258
1,087*
-14%
Denmark
431
463
432
369
331
306
406
406
303
255
221*
-13%
Ireland
411
376
335
374
396
365
338
279
238
212
186
-12%
1,334
1,431
1,447
1,382
1,286
1,063
1,222
1,076
901
802
707
-12%
625
626
653
608
600
608
661
606
385
353
324
-8%
Italy
7,096
6,980
6,563
6,122
5,818
5,669
5,131
4,725
4,237
4,090
3,800*
-7%
Portugal
1,670
1,668
1,542
1,294
1,247
969
974
885
840
845
785
-7%
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Austria
958
956
931
878
768
730
691
679
633
552
523
-5%
Israel
542
525
445
467
437
405
382
412
314
352
341
-3%
Switzerland
544
513
546
510
409
370
384
357
349
327
320
-2%
Lithuania
France
Slovenia
UK
706
697
709
752
773
760
740
499
370
299
297
-1%
8,162
7,655
6,058
5,530
5,318
4,703
4,620
4,275
4,273
3,992
3,970*
-1%
278
269
242
274
257
262
293
214
171
138
141
2%
3,598
3,581
3,658
3,368
3,337
3,300
3,056
2,718
2,337
1,905
1,958**
3%
70
62
53
50
47
43
45
35
48
32
33
3%
The Netherlands (1)
1,083
1,069
1,088
881
817
811
791
750
720
640
661
3%
Belgium
1,486
1,306
1,214
1,162
1,089
1,069
1,067
944
943
840
875*
4%
Poland
5,534
5,827
5,640
5,712
5,444
5,243
5,583
5,437
4,572
3,907
4,189
7%
Luxembourg(3)
Finland
433
415
379
375
379
336
380
344
279
272
292*
7%
Germany
6,977
6,842
6,613
5,842
5,361
5,091
4,949
4,477
4,152
3,651
4,002*
10%
Serbia
1,275
854
868
960
843
910
968
905
810
660
728
10%
Malta
(3)
Cyprus
16
16
16
13
16
10
14
15
21
15
17
13%
98
94
97
117
102
86
89
82
71
60
71
18%
Sweden (2)
531
515
512
463
423
428
454
380
341
266
319
20%
Estonia
199
223
164
170
169
204
196
132
100
79
101
28%
PIN
56,988
55,612
52,536
49,541
47,297
45,084
44,559
40,978
36,564
32,601
31,665
-3%
EU27
54,352
53,410
50,397
47,346
45,384
43,157
42,592
39,049
34,879
31,052
30,108
-3%
EU15
40,303
38,869
36,382
33,119
31,431
29,581
28,337
25,550
23,514
21,288
20,768
-2%
EU10
10,587
11,171
10,826
10,840
10,367
9,946
10,449
9,373
7,667
6,611
6,664
1%
EU2
3,462
3,370
3,189
3,387
3,586
3,630
3,806
4,126
3,698
3,153
2,676
-15%
Table 1 (Fig. 1). Road deaths and percentage change in road deaths between 2010 and 2011
Source: National statistics provided by the PIN Panellists in each country.
* Provisional estimates used for 2011, as the final figures for 2011 are not yet available at the time of going to print.
** UK estimate based on 3% increase in killed in 2011 Q1-3 compared with 2010 Q1-3.
(1)
Figures have been corrected for police underreporting. In the Netherlands, the reported number of deaths is checked by
Statistics Netherlands (CBS) and compared individually to the Death certificates and Court files of unnatural death
(2)
The definition of road deaths changed in 2010 to exclude suicides. The time series was adjusted so figures for previous
years exclude suicides as well.
(3)
In Luxembourg and Malta the numbers of road deaths are small and thus subject to substantial annual fluctuation.
71
Country
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011 2001-2011
Latvia
558
559
532
516
442
407
419
316
254
218
179
-68%
Spain
5,517
5,347
5,399
4,741
4,442
4,104
3,823
3,100
2,714
2,478
2,056*
-63%
Lithuania
706
697
709
752
773
760
740
499
370
299
297*
-58%
Ireland
411
376
335
374
396
365
338
279
238
212
186
-55%
1,670
1,668
1,542
1,294
1,247
969
974
885
840
845
785
-53%
70
62
53
50
47
43
45
35
48
32
33
-53%
Portugal
Luxembourg
8,162
7,655
6,058
5,530
5,318
4,703
4,620
4,275
4,273
3,992
3,970*
-51%
Slovenia
France
278
269
242
274
257
262
293
214
171
138
141
-49%
Estonia
199
223
164
170
169
204
196
132
100
79
101
-49%
Denmark
431
463
432
369
331
306
406
406
303
255
221*
-49%
Hungary
1,239
1,429
1,326
1,296
1,278
1,303
1,232
996
822
740
638
-49%
Slovakia
625
626
653
608
600
608
661
606
385
353
324
-48%
1,334
1,431
1,447
1,382
1,286
1,063
1,222
1,076
901
802
707
-47%
Italy
7,096
6,980
6,563
6,122
5,818
5,669
5,131
4,725
4,237
4,090
3,800*
-46%
UK
3,598
3,581
3,658
3,368
3,337
3,300
3,056
2,718
2,337
1,905
1,958**
-46%
Czech Republic
Austria
958
956
931
878
768
730
691
679
633
552
523
-45%
Serbia
1,275
854
868
960
843
910
968
905
810
660
728
-43%
Germany
6,977
6,842
6,613
5,842
5,361
5,091
4,949
4,477
4,152
3,651
4,002*
-43%
Greece
1,880
1,634
1,605
1,670
1,658
1,657
1,612
1,553
1,456
1,258
1,087*
-42%
544
513
546
510
409
370
384
357
349
327
320
-41%
1,486
1,306
1,214
1,162
1,089
1,069
1.067
944
943
840
875*
-41%
531
515
512
463
423
428
454
380
341
266
319
-40%
1.083
1.069
1.088
881
817
811
791
750
720
640
661
-39%
275
310
280
258
224
242
233
255
212
210
168*
-39%
Switzerland
Belgium
Sweden (2)
The Netherlands (1)
Norway
Israel
542
525
445
467
437
405
382
412
314
352
341
-37%
Bulgaria
1,011
959
960
943
957
1,043
1,006
1,061
901
776
658
-35%
Finland
433
415
379
375
379
336
380
344
279
272
292*
-33%
Cyprus
98
94
97
117
102
86
89
82
71
60
71
-28%
Poland
5,534
5,827
5,640
5,712
5,444
5,243
5,583
5,437
4,572
3,907
4,189
-24%
Romania
2,451
2,411
2,229
2,444
2,629
2,587
2,800
3,065
2,797
2,377
2,018
-18%
16
16
16
13
16
10
14
15
21
15
17
6%
Malta
PIN
56,988
55,612
52,536
49,541
47,297
45,084
44,559
40,978
36,564
32,601
31,665
-44%
EU27
54,352
53,410
50,397
47,346
45,384
43,157
42,592
39,049
34,879
31,052
30,108
-45%
EU15
40,303
38,869
36,382
33,119
31,431
29,581
28,337
25,550
23,514
21,288
20,768
-48%
EU10
10,587
11,171
10,826
10,840
10,367
9,946
10,449
9,373
7,667
6,611
6,664
-37%
EU2
3,462
3,370
3,189
3,387
3,586
3,630
3,806
4,126
3,698
3,153
2,676
-23%
Table 2 (Fig. 4). Road deaths and percentage change in road deaths between 2001 and 2011
Source: National statistics provided by the PIN Panellists in each country.
* Provisional estimates used for 2011, as the final figures for 2011 are not yet available at the time of going to print.
** UK estimate based on 3% increase in killed in 2011 Q1-3 compared with 2010 Q1-3.
(1)
Figures have been corrected for police underreporting. In the Netherlands, the reported number of deaths is checked
by Statistics Netherlands (CBS) and compared individually to the Death certificates and Court files of unnatural death
(2)
The definition of road deaths changed in 2010 to exclude suicides. The time series was adjusted so figures for previous
years exclude suicides as well.
72
2011
2001
Country
Road
Deaths
Population
Road Deaths
per Million
Population
Road
Deaths
Population
Road Deaths
per Million
Population
UK
1,958**
62,435,709
31
3,598
58,999,781
61
Sweden (SE)
319
9,415,570
34
531
8,882,792
60
Norway (NO)
168*
4,920,305
34
275
4,503,436
61
The Netherlands (NL)
661
16,655,799
40
1,083
15,987,075
68
Denmark (DK)
221*
5,560,628
40
431
5,349,212
81
Switzerland (CH)
320
7,870,134
41
544
7,204,055
76
Malta (MT)
17
417,617
41
16
391,415
41
Ireland (IE)
186
4,480,858
42
411
3,832,783
107
Israel (IL)
341
7,837,500 (1)
44
542
6,508,800(1)
83
Spain (ES)
2,056*
46,152,926
45
5,517
40,476,723
136
Germany (DE)
4,002*
81,751,602
49
6,977
82,259,540
85
292*
5,375,276
54
433
5,181,115
84
Finland (FI)
Slovakia (SK)
324
5,435,273
60
625
5,378,783
116
Austria (AT)
523
8,404,252
62
958
8,020,946
119
Italy (IT)
3,800*
60,626,442
63
7,096
56,960,692
125
France (FR)
3,970*
63,127,768
63
8,162
59,266,572
138
Hungary (HU)
638
9,985,722
64
1,239
10,200,298
121
Luxembourg (LU)
33
511,840
64
70
439,000
159
Czech Republic (CZ)
707
10,532,770
67
1,334
10,266,546
130
Slovenia (SI)
141
2,050,189
69
278
1,990,094
140
Portugal (PT)
785
10,636,979
74
1,670
10,256,658
163
Estonia (EE)
101
1,340,194
75
199
1,366,959
146
Belgium (BE)
875*
10,951,266
80
1,486
10,263,414
145
Latvia (LV)
179
2,229,641
80
558
2,364,254
236
Bulgaria (BG)
658
7,504,868
88
1,011
8,149,468
124
71
804,435
88
98
697,549
140
297*
3,244,601
92
706
3,486,998
202
Cyprus (CY)
Lithuania (LT)
Romania (RO)
2,018
21,413,815
94
2,451
22,430,457
109
Greece (EL)
1,087*
11,309,885
96
1,880
10,931,206
172
Serbia (RS)
728
7,276,195
100
1,275
7,504,739
170
Poland (PL)
4,189
38,200,037
110
5,534
38,253,955
145
PIN
31,665
528,460,096
60
56,988
507,805,315
112
EU27
30,108
500,555,962
60
54,352
482,084,285
113
EU15
20,768
397,396,800
52
40,303
377,107,509
107
EU10
6,664
74,240,479
90
10,587
74,396,851
142
EU2
2,676
28,918,683
93
3,462
30,579,925
113
Table 3 (Fig. 5). Road deaths per million inhabitants in 2011 (with road deaths per million
inhabitants in 2001 for comparison)
Source: National statistics provided by the PIN Panellists in each country, completed with EUROSTAT for
population figures.
* Provisional estimates used for 2011, as the final figures for 2011 are not yet available at the time of
going to print.
** UK estimate based on 3% increase in killed in 2011 Q1-3 compared with 2010 Q1-3.
(1)
National population data.
73
Country
Sweden
Great Britain
Average
number of
road deaths
Average number
of vehicle-km (in
millions)(1)
Deaths
Time period
per billion
covered
vehicle-km
309
76,286
4
2009-2011
2,203
502,935
4
2008-2010
Ireland
212
47,850
4
2009-2011
Finland
281
53,875
5
2009-2011
Norway
226
42,490
5
2008-2010
Switzerland
332
62,174
5
2009-2011
The Netherlands
703
129,381
5
2008-2010
Germany
4,093
698,000
6
2008-2010
Denmark
321
46,174
7
2008-2010
Israel
359
48,947
7
2008-2010
France
4,389
554,833
8
2007-2009
Austria
621
75,151
8
2008-2010
4,042
442,593
9
2009-2011
Belgium
909
98,104
9
2008-2010
Slovenia
174
17,841
10
2008-2010
Portugal
857
73,669
12
2008-2010
Estonia
104
8,832
12
2008-2010
Italy
Czech Republic
926
53,968
17
2008-2010
Latvia
217
10,951
20
2009-2011
Greece
1,583
76,747
21
2007-2008
Poland
5,005
183,642
27
2008-2009
Table 4 (Fig. 6). Number of road deaths per billion vehicle kilometres driven
Data provided by the PIN panellists. For additional information on the method for
estimating the number of vehicle-km please see background tables for 6th PIN Report at
http://www.etsc.eu/PIN-publications.php
(1)
74
Country
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average
2011 annual %
change
Austria
8,207
8,043
7,984
7,591
6,922
6,774
7,147
6,783
6,652
6,370
6,397
-3%
8,949
8,226
8,083
6,913
7,272
6,999
6,997
6,782
6,647
5,984
n/a
-4%
7,990
8,099
8,488
9,308
10,112
10,215
9,827
9,827
8,674
8,080
8,301
0%
Belgium
(1)
Bulgaria
1,015
945
900
960
741
730
717
661
647
586
561
-6%
Czech Republic(1)
5,378
5,375
5,125
4,711
4,237
3,883
3,861
3,725
3,725
2,823
3,092
-6%
Denmark
Cyprus
(1)
3,946
4,088
3,868
3,561
3,072
2,911
3,138
2,831
2,498
2,063
n/a
-7%
Estonia(2)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Finland
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
(1)
(2)
26,192
24,091
19,207
17,435
39,811
40,662
38,615
34,965
33,323
29,563
n/a
-6%
Germany(1)
95,040
88,382
85,577
80,801
76,952
74,502
75,443
70,644
68,567
62,620
n/a
-4%
Greece(1)
3,238
2,608
2,348
2,395
2,270
2,021
1,821
1,872
1,676
1,709
1,634*
-6%
Hungary
7,920
8,360
8,299
8,523
8,320
8,431
8,155
7,227
6,442
5,671
5,152
-4%
France
(1)(3)
Ireland(1)
1,417
1,150
1,009
877
1,021
907
860
835
640
592
467*
-9%
Israel
2,644
2,419
2,416
2,455
2,363
2,305
2,095
2,063
1,741
1,683
1,340
-6%
134,383 136,257 128,331 123,544 120,549 119,864 117,306 111,250 107,540 105,957
Italy(4)
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg(1)
Malta
n/a
-3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,222
810
630
638
791
681
569
531
-8%
7,103
7,427
7,263
7,877
8,466
8,334
8,042
5,818
4,426
4,230
3,975*
-6%
352
351
331
297
307
319
286
290
288
266
317
-2%
262
314
247
264
257
277
246
248
199
211
235
-3%
16,000
16,100
16,500
16,200
16,000
15,400
16,600
17,600
18,800
19,100
n/a
2%
Norway
1,043
1,151
994
980
977
940
879
867
751
673*
644*
-5%
The Netherlands
(5)
Poland
19,311
18,831
17,251
17,403
15,790
14,659
16,053
16,042
13,689
11,491
12,585
-4%
Portugal(1)
5,797
4,770
4,659
4,190
3,762
3,483
3,116
2,606
2,624
2,637
2,436
-8%
Romania
6,053
5,955
5,581
5,750
5,868
5,766
7,071
9,380
9,091
8,476
8,768
6%
Serbia
5,777
4,314
4,551
4,864
4,401
4,778
5,318
5,197
4,638
3,893
3,777
-2%
Slovakia(1)
2,367
2,213
2,163
2,157
1,974
2,032
2,036
1,806
1,408
1,207
1,168
-7%
Slovenia
2,481
1,561
1,399
1,398
1,292
1,259
1,295
1,100
1,061
880
919
-7%
Spain
26,566
26,156
26,305
21,805
21,859
21,382
19,295
16,488
13,923
11,995
11,193*
-9%
10,636
11,022
11,166
10,614
10,768
9,891
9,710
9,452
8,997
7,724
n/a
-3%
6,194
5,931
5,862
5,528
5,059
5,066
5,235
4,780
4,708
4,458
4,437
-3%
38,792
37,502
34,995
32,313
30,027
28,673
28,871
27,024
25,725
23,552 23,313**
-5%
439,395 427,826 407,079 388,109 398,459 390,003 387,146 366,047 347,943 324,356 324,055
-3%
229,685 216,879 205,736 189,029 204,073 198,395 194,766 179,981 170,688 153,321 152,135
-4%
(1)
Sweden(1)
Switzerland
UK
(1)
(1)
EU 27
EU same def.
(1)
Table 5 (Fig. 7). Serious injuries and annual average percentage change in serious injuries over the 20012011 period
* Provisional data
**UK estimate based on 1% decrease in seriously injured in 2011 Q1-3 compared with 2010 Q1-3.
(1)
Countries using a comparable definition of serious injuries: BE, CY, CZ, DK, FR, DE, EL, IE, LU, PT, SK, ES, SE, UK.
(2)
Separate statistics for serious and slight injuries are n/a.
(3)
Change of definition from in-patient for 6 days to in-patient for 24 hours in 2005. Average annual percentage change
2005-2010 in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8.
(4)
Separate statistics on serious and slight injuries are n/a. It was estimated from sample studies made a regional level
that serious injuries represent around 35% of the total recorded injuries.
(5)
Data for the Netherlands rounded off to nearest hundred.
75
Country
Definition of a seriously injured person in a road collision
Austria
Whether an injury is severe or slight is determined by §84 of the Austrian criminal code. A severe injury is one that
causes a health problem or occupational disability longer than 24 days, or one that “causes personal difficulty”. An
injury or health problem that “causes personal difficulty” is one that affects an “important organ”, if it results in
a “health handicap”, if the “healing process is uncertain”, or if it leads to the fear of “additional effects”. Police
records
Belgium*
Bulgaria
Cyprus*
Czech Republic*
Denmark*
Estonia
Finland
Hospitalised more than 24 hours. But in practice no communication between police and hospitals so in most cases
allocation is made by the police. Police records
n/a. Police records
Hospitalised for at least 24 hours. Police records
No official definition, but common approach is hospitalised for at least 24 hours. Police records
All injuries except "slight". Police records
Separate statistics of serious and slight injuries are n/a
Separate statistics of serious and slight injuries are n/a
France
Until 2004: hospitalised for at least 6 days. From 2005: hospitalised for at least 24 hours. Police records. People
injured are asked to go to the police to fill in information about the collision, in particular if they spent at least 24
hours as in-patient.
Germany*
Hospitalised for at least 24 hours
Greece*
Hungary
Ireland*
Israel*
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg*
Malta
Injury and injury severity are estimated by police officers. It is presumed that all persons who spent at least one
night at the hospital are recorded as seriously injured persons. Police records
Injuries which necessitated hospital care or causing health problems for at least 8 days. Police records
Hospitalised for at least 24 hours as an in-patient, or any of the following injuries whether or not detained in
hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushing, severe cuts and lacerations, several general shock
requiring medical treatment. Police records
Hospitalised more than 24 hours as in-patient. Police records
Separate statistics on seriously and slightly injuries are n/a. It was estimated from sample studies made at the
regional level that serious injuries represent around 35% of the total recorded injuries.
From 2004: hospitalised more than 24 hours as in-patient. Police records
Separate statistics on seriously and slightly injuries are n/a.
Hospitalised for at least 24 hours as in-patient. Police records
Categorisation as “serious” is made by the police. Police records
MAIS=2 or higher. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is a specialised trauma classification of injuries, ranging from
The Netherlands 1 (minor injuries) to 6 (fatal injuries). As one person can have more than one injury, the Maximum Abbreviated
Injury Score (MAIS) is the maximum AIS of all injury diagnoses for a person.
Norway
Poland
Very serious injury: Any injury that is life-threatening or results in permanent impairment. Serious injury: Any injury
from a list of specific injuries; these would normally require admission to hospital as an in-patient. Police records
Serious injury: Serious disability, serious disease, a life threatening incurable or chronic disease, permanent mental
disease, complete or substantial incapacity to work or a permanent or substantial scarring or disfiguration of the
body and injuries such as fractures, damage to internal organs, serious cuts or lacerations. Police records
Portugal*
Hospitalised for at least 24 hours. Police records.
Romania
Injuries requiring hospitalisation or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital:
Organ injuries, permanent physical or psychological disability, body disfiguration, abortion, fractures, concussions,
internal wounds, serious cuts or broken parts, or severe general shock which requires medical care and injuries
causing death 30 days after accident. Police records.
Serbia
Slovakia*
Slovenia
Spain*
Sweden*
Switzerland*
UK*
Categorisation of an injury as a “serious injury” is always made on the basis of expert assessment given by doctors
during admission to hospital, during hospitalization or after the hospitalization. Police records.
Hospitalised for at least 24 hours. Police records.
Hospitalised for at least 24 hours. Police records
Hospitalised for at least 24 hours. Police records
Hospitalised more than 24 hours. Hospital records
Hospitalised for at least 24 hours or if the injury prevented the person from doing its daily activity for 24 hours.
Police records.
Hospitalised for at least 24 hours or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital:
fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushing, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts and lacerations,
severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident.
An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of the information available
within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of medical examination.
Table 6. Definition of a seriously injured person
National definition provided by the PIN Panellists in each country.
* Group of countries considered as using similar definitions of serious injuries, spending at least one night in
hospital as an in-patient or a close variant of this. The definition may include also a quite wide list of injuries
and the allocation of “serious” is made by the police officer at the scene. Errors in the categorisation cannot be
excluded.
76
Annex - Chapter 2
Table 7: Questionnaire on Road Safety Management
PIN Panellists were asked to respond ‘No’, ‘Partly’ or ‘Yes’ to the following set of questions and add comments when
needed.
Part 1: Common questions with DaCoTA WP1 Road Safety Management
Q1.
Has a national road safety vision been set in your country? * If so, what is it?
Q2.
Has a national long-term road safety strategy been set in your country?
If so, what is it?
Q3a.
Has a national quantitative road safety target been set in your country for reducing the number of deaths? *
If so, is it different than the EU target of reducing road deaths by 50% by 2020?
If it is different, what is it?
Q3b.
Has a national quantitative road safety target been set in your country for reducing the number of people
seriously injured? *
If so, what is it?
Q3c.
Have any other quantitative road safety targets been set in your country? *
Q4.
Has a national road safety programme or plan been formulated and adopted in your country? *
If so, is this plan still current?
Q5a.
Is there a budget dedicated to the implementation of your national road safety programme or plan? * If so,
how much is it per year?
Q5b.
Is the budget seen as being adequate to make your country’s targets achievable? *
Q5c.
Have there been any changes since 2009 to the budget allocated to roads policing in your country?
Q6a.
Is there a lead agency or structure bearing responsibility for road safety policy-making in your country? *
If so, please name it.
Q6b.
Is there a lead agency that is empowered to co-ordinate the road safety activities of the main actors involved
in advancing road safety in your country? *
If so, please name it.
Q7a.
Does regular quantitative monitoring of your country’s road safety performance take place? *
If so, is it done on an annual or other basis?
Q7b.
Are the results of this monitoring published periodically? *
If so, how is it done?
Q8.
Does a regular evaluation of the efficiency of the road safety measures or interventions implemented in your
country take place? *
If so, who performs the evaluation? What measure of efficiency is used?
Q9.
Is there regular reporting on the road safety measures and interventions implemented in your country? *
If so, which body receives the reporting? On which issues?
Q10a.
Are the attitudes of people towards road safety measures being measured nationally? *
If so, is it done on an annual or other basis?
Q10b.
Are the attitudes of people towards behaviour of road users being measured nationally? *
Q10c.
Are behaviours of road users being measured nationally? *
Which behaviours are covered by the surveys?
* Questions included in Section 1, 2 and 3 for the allocation of points.
77
Table 7: Questionnaire on Road Safety Management
PIN Panellists were asked to respond ‘No’, ‘Partly’ or ‘Yes’ to the following set of questions and add comments
when needed.
Part 2: Additional PIN questions
(mainly from ETSC Methodological Approach to national road safety policies and DaCoTA)
Q11.
In what ways are actors other than governmental organisations involved in advancing road safety in your
country?
Q12.
How is the legal framework for use of the roads kept under review in your country?
Q13.
Is there at least one research institute or university department in your country helping to choose
interventions scientifically and establish transparent and trusted procedures for monitoring and
evaluation? *
Q14.
Are the results of research seen to influence policy-making and implementation in your country? *
Q15.
Enforcement of laws requiring safety-related behaviour
Q15a.
Please provide annual numbers of speed tickets since 2007 (both Police roadside checks and from speed
cameras).*
Q15b. Please provide annual numbers of Police roadside alcohol breath tests since 2007.*
Q15c. Please provide annual numbers of Police checks for drug driving since 2007.
Q15d. Please provide annual numbers of seat belt checks since 2007.
Q16.
Are there issues in your country concerning emergency services and trauma management to mitigate
injury in collisions?
Q17a. Are the collision and casualty data in your country accessible to all interested people and organisations? *
Q17b.
Do these data distinguish which collisions and casualties occur in course of work or travel to or from
work? *
Q17c.
What do you see as the most important other road safety performance indicators that are measured in
your country?
Q17d.
What do you see as the most important indicators of exposure to risk on the roads that are measured in
your country?
Q18.
Are there arrangements in your country for exchange of knowledge about good practice among road
safety actors? And sharing of knowledge with other countries? *
Q19a. Are there facilities for initial training for road safety professionals in all relevant disciplines? *
Q19b. Is there in-service training for road safety professionals in all relevant disciplines? *
Q20.
For which types of road in your country are the requirements of the EU Infrastructure Safety Directive
being adopted?*
Q21.
Are the main roads in your country the subject of systematic road safety assessment?*
Q22.
Are government authorities in your country seen to show leadership in:
a. Purchase or renting of safe vehicles? *
b. Fitment of non-mandatory safety equipment in vehicles they own or rent? *
c. Establishing travel plan including safety for employees? *
d. Requiring their contractors to do any of these? *
Q23.
Would you like to mention any specific ways in which road safety is:
a. The subject of specific efforts to build political support and commitment?
b. Considered holistically with social inclusion, sustainability and mobility?
c. Considered as a public health problem?
* Questions included in Section 1, 2 and 3 for the allocation of points.
Country answers are available in the Background Tables at http://www.etsc.eu/PIN-publications.php
78
BAC for
Novice drivers
BAC for commercial
drivers
BAC for all other
drivers
Austria
0.1
0.1
0.5
Belgium
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bulgaria
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2 (planned)
0.2 (planned)
0.5
Country
Cyprus
Czech Republic
0.0
0.0
0.0
Denmark
0.5
0.5
0.5
Estonia
0.2
0.2
0.2
Finland
0.5
0.5
0.5
France
0.5
0.5
(0.2 for bus drivers)
0.5
Germany
0.0
0.0
0.5
Greece
0.2
0.2
0.5
Hungary
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ireland
0.2
0.2
0.5
Italy
0.0
0.0
0.5
Latvia
0.2
0.5
0.5
Lithuania
0.2
0.2
0.4
Luxembourg
0.1
0.1
0.5
Malta
0.8
0.8
0.8
The Netherlands
0.2
0.2
0.5
Poland
0.2
0.2
0.2
Portugal
0.5
0.5
0.5
Romania
0.0
0.0
0.0
Slovakia
0.0
0.0
0.0
Slovenia
0.0
0.0
0.2
Spain
0.3
0.3
0.5
Sweden
0.2
0.2
0.2
UK
0.8
0.8
0.8
Table 8: Legal drink driving limits (Blood Alcohol Concentration in g/l)
Source: ETSC (2012), Drink driving: Towards Zero Tolerance.
Last update April 2012.
79
Seat belt tickets
Seat belt tickets per 1,000 population
Country
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
IL
n/a
262,559
266,746
n/a
n/a
n/a
34
35
n/a
n/a
RO
565,467
590,038
577,893
491,677
394,964
26
27
27
23
18
CY
20,865
20,657
17,879
23,908
15,463
26
26
22
30
20
SI
52,750
63,685
75,654
80,801
85,363
26
31
37
40
42
AT
147,016
136,200
144,979
156,698
141,339
17
16
17
19
17
LV
35,601
35,520
33,436
26,986
23,135
16
16
15
12
10
BE
n/a
121,730
116,886
112,970
115,611
n/a
11
11
11
11
PL
371,388
396,232
378,355
314,013
n/a
10
10
10
8
n/a
EE
10,648
18,412
15,329
30,050
n/a
8
14
11
22
n/a
DK
41,168
43,110
45,633
39,861
40,622
7
8
8
7
7
NL
108,093
187,611
228,270
200,934
278,125
6
11
14
12
17
LU
2,964
3,103
3,498
n/a
n/a
6
6
7
n/a
n/a
NO
25,767
30,043
31,707
29,006
34,660
5
6
7
6
7
FI
27,144
24,163
25,567
26,589
24,627
5
5
5
5
5
FR
n/a
280,803
350,201
382,200
406,982
n/a
4
6
6
7
PT
43,948
43,297
40,836
50,337
61,256
4
4
4
5
6
SE
33,778
37,739
37,842
36,218
39,443
4
4
4
4
4
IE
15,645
17,370
19,367
29,095
n/a
4
4
4
7
n/a
ES(1)
n/a
157,965
230,281
208,066
165,250
n/a
3
5
5
4
EL
37,120
49,703
77,274
86,353
107,112
3
4
7
8
10
LT
9,014
25,654
22,722
16,914
78,143
3
8
7
5
23
n/a
n/a
203,400
227,000
220,100
n/a
n/a
3
4
4
132,455
140,819
154,884
186,170
191,127
2
2
3
3
3
SK
8,591
13,186
14,093
21,157
18,061
2
2
3
4
3
HU
3,968
51
n/a
125,856
107,063
0
0
n/a
13
11
GB
(2)
IT
BG
n/a
n/a
CZ
n/a
n/a
CH
n/a
n/a
DE
n/a
n/a
MT
n/a
n/a
Table 9: Number of seat belt tickets per 1000 population
(1)
(2)
80
Data not available from Basque Country, Catalonia and urban areas.
England and Wales only.
Number of drug driving offences
Drug driving offences per 100,000 inhabitants
Country
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
AT
n/a
1,094
940
949
909
n/a
13.1
11.3
11.4
11.0
BE
n/a
2,236
2,588
2,595
2,167
n/a
20.6
24.1
24.3
20.5
n/a
n/a
BG
n/a
n/a
CY
n/a
n/a
CZ
n/a
n/a
DK
n/a
1,653
EE
1,485
n/a
n/a
n/a
29.9
n/a
26.9
n/a
FI
n/a
3,130
3,134
3,077
3,276
n/a
58.5
58.8
58.1
62.1
FR
n/a
537
560
575
533
n/a
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.5
1.5
DE
n/a
EL
HU
n/a
n/a
n/a
150
461
n/a
154
151
n/a
1.5
4.6
IE
n/a
n/a
IL
n/a
n/a
IT
3,510
4,267
4,383
4,564
4,515
5.8
7.1
7.3
7.7
7.6
LV
135
134
181
340
347
6.1
6.0
8.0
15.0
15.2
LT
n/a
n/a
LU
n/a
n/a
MT
n/a
n/a
NL
No detection method in operation
No detection method in operation
NO(1)
4,721
4,590
4,525
PL
3,520
16,760
100
120
(2)
PT
RO
SK
4,339
n/a
97.2
95.6
95.5
92.7
43,494
n/a
9.2
43.9
114.1
n/a
121
n/a
0.9
1.1
1.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6
4
6
9
n/a
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
SI
n/a
1,427
1,705
1,600
1,774
n/a
69.7
83.9
79.6
88.2
ES(3)
361
12
178
84
n/a
0.8
0.0
0.4
0.2
n/a
SE
12,675
12,586
12,133
12,333
11,323
134.6
134.7
131.1
134.3
124.2
CH
n/a
n/a
UK
n/a
n/a
Table 10: Annual numbers of drug driving offences
Number of positive tests at forensic laboratory
Number of Police checks.
(3)
Data not available from Basque Country, Catalonia and urban areas.
(1)
(2)
81
Annex - Chapter 3
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average
annual %
change
2001-2010
606
552
488
433
404
273
275
230
234
195
-12.3%
Spain
1,927
1,877
1,942
1,655
1,487
1,345
1,255
960
759
625
-11.9%
Latvia
166
144
169
141
120
107
109
95
65
48
-11.7%
Estonia
63
77
55
41
50
61
73
41
35
18
-9.4%
Slovenia
118
93
87
88
101
107
116
69
52
33
-9.1%
Country
Portugal
Luxembourg
Germany
Switzerland
Italy
The Netherlands
France
Belgium*
33
21
17
21
19
14
13
12
10
15
-9.1%
2,557
2,520
2,362
2,043
1,771
1,661
1,613
1,493
1,301
1,128
-8.7%
153
159
178
179
124
114
113
97
105
69
-8.5%
2,226
2,235
2,130
1,959
1,891
1,719
1,578
1,348
1,145
1,078
-8.3%
338
375
338
268
219
200
230
200
210
156
-8.2%
3,204
2,902
2,228
2,146
2,075
1,735
1,711
1,616
1,606
1,468
-7.9%
540
492
429
428
361
363
382
327
265
n/a
-7.3%
Sweden
178
171
159
143
128
139
141
114
105
80
-7.1%
Czech Republic*
425
465
465
439
427
319
375
333
242
n/a
-7.1%
Austria
335
303
294
284
260
222
234
215
186
167
-7.0%
Israel
201
202
155
166
159
152
141
145
98
111
-6.6%
Ireland
196
154
139
161
190
163
128
127
109
96
-6.0%
Denmark
133
163
124
118
107
107
108
118
96
69
-6.0%
1,305
1,340
1,382
1,280
1,290
1,262
1,144
978
855
n/a
-5.3%
Hungary
UK*
403
363
341
337
350
317
382
349
218
225
-5.0%
Norway
100
124
93
104
87
76
70
88
78
73
-4.5%
Cyprus
41
44
39
48
52
47
39
33
39
24
-4.3%
Greece
683
535
592
607
608
587
565
502
479
399
-4.0%
Finland
145
118
98
131
108
118
129
102
100
85
-3.4%
Poland
1,697
1,816
1,683
1,617
1,700
1,616
1,776
1,744
1,449
1,236
-2.4%
Romania
644
581
543
627
640
636
721
797
727
551
1.5%
Malta
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
10
5
6
5
5
6
Slovakia
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
166
173
167
159
83
n/a
EU (1)
18,669
17,341
16,104
15,015
14,534
13,296
13,270
11,967
10,375
9,147
PIN
19,123
17,826
16,530
15,464
14,904
13,638
13,594
12,297
10,656
9,400
7.0%
Table 11 (Fig. 12a): Road deaths among young people (15-30) and average annual percentage
change between 2001 and 2010.
Source: CARE when available, completed or updated by the PIN Panellists.
*2010 data not available, 2009 figure used for 2010 in calculating the annual average percentage change.
No data was received from Bulgaria. Lithuania: the data do not match the age groups used in this report.
(1)
EU27 except Lithuania and Bulgaria.
82
Country
Latvia
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Annual
average
% change
2001-2010
309
266
310
257
218
194
198
173
120
91
-11.6%
Spain
195
191
198
169
153
139
131
101
81
69
-11.2%
Portugal
250
229
205
184
174
120
123
105
110
94
-10.8%
Luxembourg
371
236
193
234
209
150
137
124
101
148
-10.6%
Estonia
201
245
174
128
155
189
227
128
111
58
-9.4%
Switzerland
108
112
125
125
86
79
77
65
69
45
-9.3%
Germany
166
165
155
134
115
107
104
97
85
74
-8.7%
Sweden
103
98
91
82
73
78
77
61
55
41
-8.3%
Slovenia
255
202
190
193
225
240
264
161
122
79
-8.1%
Netherlands
103
116
105
85
69
64
73
63
66
48
-8.1%
France
254
231
178
172
167
139
137
129
128
117
-7.9%
Belgium*
261
239
209
209
176
176
183
155
124
n/a
-7.7%
Austria
206
188
183
176
160
135
142
129
111
99
-7.5%
Israel
116
117
89
94
89
85
78
80
53
60
-7.4%
Italy
189
195
190
177
173
160
149
128
110
104
-7.0%
Ireland
197
152
136
157
183
152
116
114
101
93
-6.8%
Cyprus
244
260
225
268
278
243
197
164
192
118
-6.6%
UK*
108
111
115
105
105
101
90
75
65
n/a
-6.5%
Denmark
125
155
119
115
105
105
107
115
92
65
-5.8%
Czech Rep.*
167
184
186
176
175
133
159
142
105
n/a
-5.8%
Norway
107
134
101
113
95
82
75
92
80
73
-5.2%
Finland
141
115
95
126
103
112
122
96
94
79
-3.9%
Hungary
167
151
143
143
149
138
170
159
101
106
-3.5%
Poland
174
184
170
163
171
163
181
180
152
132
-2.0%
Greece
264
211
238
248
254
250
246
223
218
186
-1.0%
Romania
111
106
99
114
116
117
135
153
143
111
2.9%
Slovakia
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
116
122
119
115
61
n/a
Malta
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
106
53
64
53
52
63
EU (1)
178
167
156
146
141
129
129
117
102
91
PIN
176
165
154
144
139
127
129
115
100
89
-6.7%
Table 12 (Fig. 12b): Road deaths among young people (15-30) per million young inhabitants and
average annual percentage change in their road mortality between 2001 and 2010.
Source: CARE when available, completed or updated by the PIN Panellists.
*2010 data not available, 2009 figure used for 2010 in calculating the annual average percentage change.
No data was received from Bulgaria. Lithuania: the data do not match the age groups used in this report.
(1) EU27 except Lithuania and Bulgaria.
83
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Deaths among 15-17
1,940
1,793
1,600
1,515
1,556
1,518
1,482
1,371
1,360
1,249
Deaths among 18-24
10,108
9,471
8,095
7,511
7,308
6,719
6,616
6,673
6,565
6,516
Deaths among 25-30
5,769
5,342
4,996
4,646
4,808
4,450
4,556
4,547
4,432
4,500
Deaths among females 15-30
3,412
3,180
2,773
2,721
2,683
2,490
2,434
2,520
2,441
2,355
Deaths among males 15-30
14,405
13,427
11,918
10,951
10,989
10,196
10,221
10,070
9,915
9,911
Total road deaths
44,726
42,140
38,608
36,700
36,642
34,868
34,763
34,552
34,151
33,898
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Deaths among 15-17
1,256
1,144
1,159
1,050
1,056
928
902
765
713
605
Deaths among 18-24
6,285
5,943
5,462
5,156
4,854
4,346
4,112
3,644
3,266
2,964
Deaths among 25-30
4,309
4,150
3,741
3,427
3,237
2,974
2,879
2,437
2,164
1,984
Deaths among females 15-30
2,311
2,141
1,889
1,750
1,697
1,475
1,363
1,258
1,094
965
Deaths among males 15-30
9,538
9,096
8,473
7,883
7,450
6,773
6,530
5,587
5,049
4,587
Total road deaths
33,287
31,999
29,731
27,220
26,023
24,430
23,330
20,944
19,287
17,675
Table 13 (Fig. 13) Reduction in road deaths since 1991 in the EU15 (except Germany) among
people aged 15-17 (purple line), 18-24 (orange line), 25-30 (green line), among males
aged 15 to 30 (blue line) and females aged 15-30 (pink line) with reduction in total road
deaths for comparison.
Source: CARE database (except 2010: PIN data as provided by Panellists).
Note: Data for Germany are available in CARE since 2000 only.
84
Country
Change in mortality among Change in mortality for the
young people
rest of the population
Difference
Luxembourg
-10.6%
-7.0%
3.6%
Switzerland
-9.3%
-5.9%
3.4%
Slovenia
-8.1%
-4.8%
3.3%
The Netherlands
-8.1%
-5.1%
3.0%
Latvia
-11.6%
-8.7%
2.9%
Portugal
-10.8%
-7.9%
2.9%
Belgium*
-7.7%
-4.9%
2.9%
Germany
-8.7%
-5.9%
2.8%
Sweden
-8.3%
-6.2%
2.1%
Estonia
-9.4%
-7.7%
1.7%
Spain
-11.2%
-9.6%
1.6%
Norway
-5.2%
-3.6%
1.6%
Austria
-7.5%
-6.0%
1.5%
Denmark
-5.8%
-4.5%
1.3%
Israel
-7.0%
-6.3%
1.0%
Italy
-7.0%
-6.7%
0.3%
France
-7.9%
-8.0%
-0.1%
Czech Republic*
-5.8%
-6.0%
-0.2%
Cyprus
-6.6%
-6.9%
-0.2%
UK*
-6.5%
-6.9%
-0.5%
Greece
-2.0%
-3.1%
-1.1%
Romania
2.9%
1.8%
-1.1%
Finland
-3.9%
-5.3%
-1.4%
Ireland
-6.8%
-8.3%
-1.4%
Poland
-2.0%
-3.4%
-1.4%
Hungary
-3.5%
-6.5%
-3.0%
EU
-6.7%
-5.7%
1.0%
PIN
-6.7%
-5.7%
1.0%
Table 14 (Fig. 14): Amount by which the average annual percentage reduction in mortality
among young people (15-30) exceeds the average annual percentage reduction
for the rest of the population over the period 2001-2010.
Source: CARE when available, completed or updated by the PIN Panellists.
*2010 data not available, 2009 figure used for 2010 in calculating the annual average percentage
change.
(1)
EU27 except Lithuania, Bulgaria and Malta. In Malta numbers of young people killed are below 10.
85
Deaths
Road
Young
Country among young
mortality for
inhabitants
people
young people
Road
Deaths at all Population all
mortality at
other ages
other ages
all other ages
SE
100
1,895,593
53
229
7,364,392
31
NL
189
3,197,917
59
515
13,290,808
39
CH
90
1,515,589
60
254
6,178,129
41
IL
118
1,831,950
64
251
5,572,950
45
MT
6
94,871
67
10
315,699
36
UK*
992
12,937,653
77
1,711
48,251,810
35
NO
80
977,329
82
146
3,820,878
38
ES
781
9,296,333
84
1,983
35,899,021
68
DE
1,307
15,317,916
85
2,786
66,689,567
42
FI
96
1,061,152
90
202
4,240,099
48
SK
136
1,385,593
98
414
4,016,703
103
EE
31
314,476
100
72
1,026,017
71
IE
111
1,077,837
103
132
3,361,903
39
PT
220
2,130,057
103
637
8,497,456
75
DK
107
1,027,199
104
264
4,450,910
59
AT
189
1,675,641
113
432
6,674,073
65
IT
1,190
10,512,194
114
3,161
49,086,355
64
SI
51
424,381
121
123
1,605,488
77
HU
264
2,154,353
123
588
7,875,880
75
LU
12
99,296
124
26
394,826
66
FR
1,563
12,517,220
125
2,617
51,468,397
51
LV
69
539,611
128
193
1,720,576
112
CZ*
317
2,336,364
136
750
8,042,256
93
RO
692
5,095,969
136
2,055
16,400,507
125
BE*
325
2,114,241
154
660
8,553,919
77
PL
1,476
9,538,723
155
3,162
28,600,892
111
CY
32
202,748
158
39
593,682
66
EL
460
2,247,166
210
1,080
8,968,143
107
EU
10,497
101,663,421
103
28,343
395,642,014
61
Table. 15 (Fig. 16) Young people deaths per million young inhabitants (with road deaths per
million inhabitants at all other ages for comparison). Average values for years 2008,
2009 and 2010.
* last three years available: 2007, 2008 and 2009
86
Country
Road mortality for
young FEMALES
SE
24
Road mortality for Road mortality for ALL
young MALES
young people
80
53
NL
26
92
59
CH
23
95
60
IL
18
100
64
MT
44
89
67
UK*
31
121
77
NO
33
128
82
ES
34
132
84
DE
39
130
85
FI
33
144
90
SK*
32
162
98
EE
39
158
100
IE
41
164
103
PT
52
153
103
DK
44
161
104
AT
46
179
113
IT
40
186
114
SI
46
190
121
HU
46
195
123
LU
54
192
124
FR
42
207
125
LV
42
201
128
CZ*
50
216
136
RO
58
210
136
BE*
50
255
154
PL
59
248
155
CY
23
294
158
EL
58
349
210
EU
40
164
103
Table 16 (Fig. 17) Young people’s road mortality per million young people,
in total and by gender, ranked by the mortality of both sexes.
Average values for years 2008, 2009 and 2010.
* last three years available: 2007, 2008, 2009
87
Country
Car
drivers
Car
Car user Motorcycle
passengers together
users
CY
30.3%
10.1%
EL
31.9%
11.2%
MT
38.5%
7.7%
IT
31.9%
13.8%
46.4%
36.5%
9.8%
1.4%
3.5%
3.0%
SI
38.9%
8.7%
47.6%
30.2%
3.2%
4.8%
0.8%
13.5%
PT
31.2%
19.9%
51.1%
29.9%
3.0%
0.4%
2.8%
13.0%
40.4%
Moped
users
Cyclists Pedestrians
Other
42.7%
9.0%
3.4%
4.5%
0.0%
43.1%
47.4%
2.3%
0.8%
2.8%
3.4%
46.2%
46.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.7%
CH
37.9%
14.6%
52.5%
30.1%
1.4%
4.6%
5.9%
5.5%
FR
37.3%
15.3%
52.6%
25.2%
12.4%
1.5%
3.7%
4.6%
HU
38.9%
16.0%
54.9%
13.3%
2.9%
2.6%
7.6%
18.6%
ES
37.7%
18.0%
55.7%
19.6%
10.5%
1.4%
5.1%
7.7%
UK*
37.9%
20.6%
58.5%
21.3%
1.7%
2.4%
12.7%
3.4%
BE*
49.1%
9.7%
58.8%
15.0%
5.4%
3.7%
3.8%
13.4%
NL
43.1%
16.2%
59.3%
12.8%
10.3%
6.7%
4.0%
6.7%
DE
46.8%
15.9%
62.7%
21.8%
2.5%
2.9%
6.6%
3.6%
PL
40.9%
22.9%
63.8%
15.0%
2.7%
2.0%
12.8%
3.7%
LV
36.7%
27.7%
64.5%
13.3%
3.0%
3.6%
9.6%
6.0%
IL
36.6%
28.0%
64.5%
22.6%
0.0%
0.7%
11.5%
0.7%
DK
44.0%
20.7%
64.7%
9.5%
7.8%
4.3%
7.3%
6.5%
AT
49.5%
16.5%
65.9%
13.8%
8.4%
0.7%
6.6%
4.6%
RO
36.6%
29.5%
66.1%
8.5%
6.9%
2.1%
9.2%
7.1%
SK*
44.2%
22.7%
66.9%
16.0%
0.0%
2.6%
10.8%
3.8%
IE
43.8%
23.4%
67.2%
14.3%
0.0%
2.3%
8.7%
7.5%
CZ*
47.1%
20.5%
67.7%
20.2%
0.1%
2.2%
5.9%
4.0%
FI
44.5%
25.4%
69.9%
11.9%
5.9%
2.1%
3.8%
6.4%
SE
48.9%
21.9%
70.8%
18.0%
3.9%
0.9%
2.6%
3.9%
NO
53.9%
22.5%
76.4%
14.1%
1.0%
2.1%
3.1%
3.1%
EE
41.6%
37.7%
79.2%
3.9%
6.5%
1.3%
7.8%
1.3%
LU
75.9%
13.8%
89.7%
10.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
EU males
39.4%
18.2%
57.4%
22.2%
6.9%
2.1%
6.9%
5.1%
EU all
37.6%
21.5%
59.2%
18.0%
5.3%
2.3%
7.6%
4.9%
Table 17 (Fig. 18a) Percentage share of different types of road user, among male road deaths for the
15-30 age group.
Average values for years 2008, 2009 and 2010.
* last three years available: 2007, 2008, 2009.
Countries ranked by percentage of car users (driver or passenger).
88
Country Car drivers
PT
Car
Car user Motorcycle
passengers together
users
16.7%
32.2%
48.9%
NL
30.6%
22.3%
CH
28.8%
25.0%
Moped
users
Cyclists Pedestrians
4.8%
5.6%
3.4%
52.9%
1.7%
10.7%
53.8%
19.2%
1.9%
Other
9.9%
27.5%
22.3%
9.1%
3.3%
9.6%
13.5%
1.9%
HU
17.0%
38.1%
55.1%
8.2%
0.7%
1.4%
10.9%
23.8%
CY
14.3%
42.9%
57.1%
0.0%
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
SI
35.7%
21.4%
57.1%
0.0%
0.0%
3.6%
3.6%
35.7%
LV
21.2%
39.4%
60.6%
6.1%
0.0%
3.0%
24.2%
6.1%
SK*
15.4%
47.7%
63.1%
10.8%
0.0%
3.1%
16.9%
6.2%
IL
16.0%
50.0%
66.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
28.0%
2.0%
BE*
37.3%
29.7%
67.1%
2.5%
2.5%
8.9%
8.2%
10.8%
DK
37.3%
31.4%
68.6%
5.9%
3.9%
7.8%
11.8%
2.0%
ES
34.7%
34.9%
69.7%
7.6%
5.5%
1.1%
10.7%
5.9%
EL
21.6%
48.1%
69.7%
23.2%
1.6%
0.0%
4.9%
0.5%
FR
43.3%
28.4%
71.6%
8.0%
7.4%
1.8%
6.9%
4.2%
AT
45.1%
26.5%
71.7%
6.2%
6.2%
4.4%
10.6%
0.0%
IT
32.1%
39.8%
71.9%
11.7%
5.4%
2.1%
7.0%
1.8%
FI
33.3%
39.2%
72.5%
7.8%
7.8%
0.0%
5.9%
5.9%
RO
14.7%
59.8%
74.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
16.3%
5.3%
PL
25.5%
49.3%
74.8%
2.7%
1.1%
3.0%
17.0%
1.5%
UK*
37.3%
38.1%
75.4%
3.2%
0.3%
3.4%
16.1%
1.5%
SE
33.3%
45.5%
78.8%
4.5%
3.0%
4.5%
7.6%
1.5%
DE
50.5%
29.2%
79.7%
6.5%
1.6%
3.5%
7.1%
1.6%
NO
37.5%
43.8%
81.3%
4.2%
0.0%
2.1%
8.3%
4.2%
CZ*
34.1%
48.8%
82.9%
4.1%
0.0%
0.6%
12.4%
0.0%
EE
38.9%
44.4%
83.3%
0.0%
0.0%
11.1%
5.6%
0.0%
MT
33.3%
50.0%
83.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
IE
50.0%
34.8%
84.8%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.1%
0.0%
LU
75.0%
25.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
EU females
34.37%
38.06%
72.40%
6.24%
3.25%
3.16%
10.74%
4.20%
EU all
37.64%
21.54%
59.20%
17.96%
5.27%
2.25%
7.60%
4.86%
Table 18 (Fig. 18b) Percentage share of different types of road user, among female road deaths for
the 15-30 age group.
Average values for years 2008, 2009 and 2010.
* last three years available: 2007, 2008, 2009.
Countries ranked by percentage of car users (driver or passenger).
89
Road deaths
Country 2007
2008
2009
Deaths from all causes
Average
of last 3
years
2007
2008
average
2009 of last 3
years
Road deaths among
young people as a % of
deaths from all causes in
the same age group
MT
6
5
5
5
42
35
52
43
12.4%
EE
73
41
35
31
429
351
333
371
13.4%
SE
141
114
105
100
792
814
762
789
15.2%
LV
109
95
65
69
603
598
517
573
15.7%
NO
70
88
78
80
468
498
499
488
16.1%
FI
129
102
100
110
699
645
655
666
16.6%
UK
1,144
978
855
992
5,909
6,027
5,860
5,932
16.7%
SK
167
159
83
108
773
849
744
789
17.3%
CH
113
97
105
90
639
596
586
607
17.3%
NL
230
200
210
189
1,067
1,025
992
1,028
20.8%
IE
128
127
109
111
643
407
692
581
20.9%
RO
721
797
727
692
3,492
3,551
3,403
3,482
21.5%
PT
275
230
234
220
1,190
1,109
990
1,096
22.5%
DK
108
118
96
94
447
453
440
447
24.0%
DE
1,613
1,493
1,301
1,307
6,063
5,891
5,810
5,921
24.8%
PL
1,776
1,744
1,449
1,476
6,555
6,539
6,288
6,461
25.6%
CZ
375
333
242
317
1,316
1,248
1,121
1,228
25.8%
AT
234
215
186
189
833
811
800
815
26.0%
LU
13
12
10
12
52
47
35
45
26.1%
ES
1,255
960
759
991
4,075
3,761
3,287
3,708
26.7%
FR
1,711
1,616
1,606
1,563
6,161
6,020
6,022
6,068
27.1%
HU
382
349
218
264
1,183
1,150
1,064
1,132
27.9%
BE
382
327
265
325
1,110
1,115
1,054
1,093
29.7%
IT
1,578
1,348
1,145
1,357
4,850
4,002
0
4,426
30.7%
SI
116
69
52
51
296
227
218
247
32.0%
CY
39
33
39
32
122
104
107
111
33.3%
EL
565
502
479
515
1,551
1,349
1,407
1,436
35.9%
EU
13,270
11,967
10,375
11,871
51,560
49,446
43,791
48,266
24.1%
Table 19 (Fig.19) Road deaths among those aged 15 to 30 as a percentage of deaths from all causes in
the same age group in last three years available.
Source: Data on deaths from all causes are available in Eurostat up to 2009.
Data on deaths from all causes are not available in Israel.
90
MALES
Age group
FEMALES
Road deaths as a
Road deaths as
Road Deaths from all
Road Deaths from all
% of deaths from
a % of deaths
deaths
causes
deaths
causes
all causes
from all causes
15-year old
157
755
20.8%
80
441
18.1%
16-year old
303
1,054
28.7%
118
543
21.7%
17-year old
452
1,444
31.3%
147
601
24.5%
18-24 year old
5,191
16,213
32.0%
1,218
5,214
23.4%
25-30 year old
3,509
17,150
20.5%
676
5,830
11.6%
Table 20 (Fig. 20): Road deaths in the EU, by gender and age group as a percentage of deaths from all
causes for that particular age group and gender in the last three years available.
Source: Data on deaths from all causes are available in Eurostat up to 2009.
91
Number of deaths in collisions involving a car or motorcycle driven
by a young person Country 2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
NO
54
68
55
54
NL*
365
386
365
207
CH
212
198
219
216
PT†
700
670
583
480
DK
139
160
133
126
45
As a % of total road
deaths
2010
last 3 years
available
beginning
of the
decade
20.1%
19.6%
61
47
45
44
47
175
152
154
216
206
n/a
25.5%
33.7%
154
134
134
113
119
83
30.5%
39.0%
461
290
334
261
n/a
n/a
31.3%
41.9%
103
100
110
118
102
84
31.5%
32.3%
HU*‡
n/a
n/a
339
464
503
452
424
316
258
n/a
32.7%
25.6%
LV
203
202
211
193
149
147
160
118
75
66
32.9%
36.4%
SE
201
197
183
159
146
150
158
126
118
88
33.6%
37.9%
SK*‡
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
261
237
239
207
110
n/a
33.7%
43.5%
ES
2270
2193
2257
1881
1705
1608
1496
1126
905
803
34.2%
41.1%
FI
160
148
132
141
131
127
146
109
104
101
35.2%
37.0%
BE*
650
538
489
425
419
402
395
330
334
n/a
35.8%
43.7%
RO*
894
868
770
915
894
977
983
1133
1057
n/a
36.6%
36.5%
AT
401
382
381
349
298
257
274
268
230
191
37.0%
41.9%
CY
43
48
38
45
47
43
45
31
29
19
37.1%
43.9%
UK*
1488
1481
1473
1387
1400
1392
1223
1021
809
n/a
37.6%
41.4%
IT*
2952
2957
2710
2558
2459
2269
2030
1782
1555
n/a
38.1%
41.6%
IL
255
165
178
186
200
173
170
154
124
134
38.2%
47.0%
CZ*
572
622
612
585
537
381
483
418
328
n/a
38.4%
42.9%
EL
822
684
673
767
761
737
711
629
588
514
40.6%
43.7%
IE
211
174
159
173
187
176
151
135
88
73
40.6%
51.3%
DE
3345
3266
3034
2591
2281
2084
2080
1878
1701
1415
40.7%
47.9%
SI
153
123
117
135
120
137
157
90
74
52
41.3%
55.0%
EE
98
102
65
57
60
92
83
47
47
36
41.8%
49.2%
FR
3858
3522
2578
2523
2377
1960
1898
1790
1755
1984
44.1%
47.3%
PL
2501
2628
2398
2407
2458
2323
2561
2504
2128
1768
46.0%
45.2%
LU
45
23
23
27
26
22
18
17
21
15
46.1%
64.3%
MT†‡
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
7
8
6
6
n/a
n/a
51.3%
43.8%
EU(1)
22,071
21,374
19,723
18,595
17,965
16,523
16,319
14,676
12,622
11,866
37.3%
40.6%
Table 21 (Fig. 21) Road deaths in collisions involving at least one young driver or rider (in latest three
years available and in 2001) as a percentage of the total number of road deaths
Source: CARE when available, completed or updated by the PIN Panellists.
* Latest 3 years available 2007, 2008, 2009.
† Latest 3 years available 2006, 2007, 2008.
‡ First year available: HU 2003; MT, SK 2005
92
Country
15-30
driver
Other
driver
Car
15-30
Other
Motorcyclist
Passenger
motorcyclist motorcyclist
Moped
User
Cyclist
Pedestrian
Other
SI
27.3%
6.9%
8.8%
21.8%
17.6%
4.2%
0.5%
6.9%
13.4%
14.4%
CY
23.9%
4.3%
16.2%
41.0%
32.5%
8.5%
5.1%
0.9%
8.5%
0.0%
EL
24.0%
5.6%
16.2%
39.5%
33.3%
5.9%
1.0%
0.9%
11.0%
1.8%
MT†
35.7%
14.3%
0.0%
35.7%
28.6%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
IT*
24.4%
8.2%
18.7%
30.4%
24.4%
6.0%
4.0%
3.3%
9.6%
1.4%
CH
31.1%
4.8%
15.6%
31.1%
24.1%
7.0%
2.2%
3.8%
9.8%
1.6%
PT†
27.6%
4.7%
23.0%
25.5%
22.5%
3.0%
2.5%
1.7%
11.1%
3.9%
RO*
20.9%
4.1%
30.7%
5.8%
5.0%
0.8%
1.2%
3.9%
31.3%
2.0%
HU*
31.8%
2.0%
23.6%
14.7%
13.6%
1.2%
1.4%
7.8%
17.1%
1.6%
PL
26.3%
5.6%
25.5%
9.7%
8.8%
0.9%
0.9%
5.9%
25.2%
0.9%
FR
32.5%
7.9%
18.7%
23.0%
18.9%
4.1%
5.6%
2.4%
7.3%
2.6%
SK*
29.1%
5.4%
25.5%
11.9%
11.2%
0.7%
0.0%
4.5%
23.0%
0.5%
LV
26.6%
3.5%
30.5%
10.0%
9.3%
0.8%
0.4%
6.6%
21.6%
0.8%
ES
30.7%
8.4%
22.7%
18.1%
14.3%
3.9%
3.1%
1.4%
13.0%
2.6%
CZ*
34.6%
7.2%
23.0%
14.8%
13.3%
1.5%
0.2%
5.0%
14.2%
1.1%
DE
37.4%
9.1%
19.3%
18.5%
14.4%
4.2%
1.1%
4.4%
9.0%
1.2%
NL*
42.2%
5.2%
19.6%
14.1%
11.5%
2.6%
2.8%
8.5%
5.9%
1.7%
UK*
36.8%
5.8%
24.9%
19.3%
17.3%
2.0%
0.1%
0.4%
11.7%
1.0%
DK
36.8%
7.3%
25.2%
10.3%
7.6%
2.7%
3.3%
4.3%
11.2%
1.5%
AT
40.1%
8.6%
20.9%
13.4%
10.2%
3.2%
2.5%
3.5%
10.4%
0.7%
BE*
43.4%
6.9%
19.3%
16.0%
11.9%
4.1%
1.5%
3.6%
7.5%
1.9%
EE
28.6%
8.3%
33.1%
3.0%
2.3%
0.8%
1.5%
5.3%
18.0%
2.3%
SE
41.0%
10.2%
22.0%
16.3%
13.6%
2.7%
0.6%
2.4%
6.9%
0.6%
IL*
25.1%
8.4%
38.4%
14.3%
9.8%
4.5%
0.0%
1.1%
8.7%
0.0%
IE
46.7%
5.0%
25.7%
13.5%
12.5%
0.9%
0.0%
0.9%
5.3%
2.8%
FI*
39.6%
6.4%
31.5%
13.9%
12.0%
1.9%
0.8%
2.2%
5.3%
0.3%
NO
56.3%
4.7%
18.1%
19.1%
13.5%
5.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.9%
LU
52.8%
11.3%
20.8%
5.7%
5.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.4%
0.0%
EU
31.1%
6.8%
22.5%
17.9%
16.1%
2.6%
1.9%
3.4%
14.8%
1.6%
Table 22 (Fig. 22) Road deaths following collisions involving at least one car or motorcycle driven
by a young person ranked by the share of car users (drivers or passengers) killed in those
collisions in the last three available years.
Source: CARE when available, completed or updated by the PIN Panellists.
* Latest 3 years available 2007, 2008, 2009.
† Latest 3 years available 2006, 2007, 2008.
93
94
www.beelzepub.com
ISBN–NUMBER : 9789076024363
European Transport Safety Council
Avenue des Celtes 20 - 1040 Brussels
tel: +32 2 230 41 06
fax: +32 2 230 42 15
e-mail: information@etsc.eu
website: www.etsc.eu